62d  Congress  \ 
2d  Session  j 


SENATE 


\   No.  887 


r  Document 


Improvement  of  Hudson  River 


THE  SECRETARY  OF  WAR  . 


ALL  CORRESPONDENCE  '  AND  DOCUMENTS,  OR 
COPIES  OF  DOCUMENTS,  ON  FILE  IN  HIS  OFFICE 
OR  IN  HIS  POSSESSION,  RELATING  TO  THE 
ATTITUDE  AND  ACTION  OF  THE  STATE  OF  NEW 
YORK  REGARDING  THE  CONDITIONS  IMPOSED 
UPON  THE  APPROPRIATION  FOR  THE  IMPROVE- 
MENT OF  THE  HUDSON  RIVER        ::        ::  :: 


LETTER 


FROM 


TRANSMITTING 


WASHINGTON 


GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 


1912 


In  the  Senate  of  the  United  States, 

July  31,  1912. 

Resolved,  That  House  Document  No.  719,  Sixty-first  Congress, 
second  session,  together  with  Senate  resokition  No.  323,  Sixty-second 
Congress,  second  session,  and  the  response  of  Hon.  Henry  L.  Stiinson, 
Secretary  of  War,  relative  to  the  attitude  and  action  of  the  State  of 
New  York  regarding  conditions  imposed  upon  the  appropriation  for 
the  improvement  of  the  Hudson  River,  be  printed,  with  accompany- 
ing illustrations,  as  a  Senate  document. 

Attest: 

Charles  G.  Bennett, 

Secretary. 

2 


0  r-f<'- 


RESOLUTION  REQUESTING  TRANSMITTAL, 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  War  be  requested  to  transmit  to 
the  Senate  all  correspondence  and  documents,  or  copies  of  documents, 
on  file  in  his  office  or  in  his  possession,  relating  to  the  attitude  and 
action  of  the  State  of  New  York  regarding  the  conditions  imposed 
upon  the  appropriation  of  one  million  three  hundred  thousand  dol- 
lars for  the  miprovement  of  the  Hudson  Kiver,  made  by  the  act  of 
June  twenty-firth,  nineteen  hundred  and  ten,  together  with  any  other 
information  that  it  may  be  appropriate^  to  transmit  therewith. 


LETTER  OF  TRANSMITTAL. 

War  Department, 

Washington,  June  7,  1912. 

Sir:  In  response  to  Senate  resolution  dated  May  29  ultimo,  I  have 
the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  copies  of  all  correspondence  and 
documents  on  file  in  this  department  relative  to  the  attitude  and 
action  of  the  State  of  New  York  regarding  the  conditions  imposed 
upon  the  appropriation  of  $1,300,000  for  the  improvement  of  the 
Hudson  River,  made  by  the  act  of  June  25,  1910. 
Very  respectfully, 

Henry  L.  Stimson, 

Secretary  of  War. 

The  President  of  the  Senate. 

3- 


F9> 


HUDSON  EIVER,  NEW  YOEK. 


War  Department, 
United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  York  City,  July  2,  1910, 
The  Chief  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

General:  I  have  the  honor  to  invite  attention  to  the  inclosed 
correspondence  relating  to  the  State  lock  and  dam  at  Troy,  N.  Y. 

In  view  of  the  legal  complications  in  the  case  and  of  the  absolute 
necessity  for  freedom  of  action  for  the  United  States  in  conducting 
the  work  of  improvement  of  the  upper  Hudson  at  and  in  the  vicinity 
of  the  State  dam  at  Troy,  it  appears  to  me  essential  that  such  action 
be  taken  as  may  be  necessary  to  have  the  existing  lock  and  dam  for- 
mally '^abandoned"  by  the  State  of  New  York  before  entering  upon 
the  proposed  work  of  improvement  in  that  vicinity. 

Although  no  formal  notification  of  the  availability  of  the  appro- 
priation has  been  received  by  me,  the  condition  of  having  the  Hudson 
open  for  navigation  at  the  date  of  the  opening  of  the  Champlain  Canal 
will  require  that  the  work  be  started  with  the  least  practicable  delay. 

As  soon  as  the  formal  notification  of  the  availability  of  the  appro- 
priation has  been  received,  a  formal  recommendation  will  be  made  to 
you  in  the  matter. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  M.  Black, 

Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army. 


War  Department, 
United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  York  City,  June  10,  1910. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Canal  Board, 

State  Hall,  Albany,  N.  Y. 

Dear  Sir:  I  am  informed  that  the  river  and  harbor  bill  has  been 
passed  by  Congress  and  practically  awaits  the  signature  of  the  Presi- 
dent to  become  a  law.  I  am  further  informed  that  this  bill  contains 
provisions  for  entering  upon  the  improvement  of  the  upper  Hudson, 
including  the  construction  of  a  new  lock  and  dam  at  Troy.  The  con- 
struction of  this  lock  and  dam  will  render  necessary  the  removal  of 
the  old  State  dam  and  lock.  It  would  be  advisable,  if  not  legally 
necessary,  it  seems  to  me,  to  have  official  action  taken  by  the  State 
authorities  formally  abandoning  the  existing  State  dam  and  lock,  to 
take  effect  at  such  time  as  the  United  States  may  re(juire,  such  action 
to  be  effective  on  one  month's  notification  of  the  intentions  of  the 
United  States  to  begin  the  work  of  the  removal  of  the  State  dam. 

5 


6 


HUDSON  KIVEE,  NEW  YORK. 


Inasmuch  as  I  have  no  official  notification  of  the  passage  of  the 
river  and  harbor  bill,  nor  of  the  intention  of  the  United  States  to 
build  a  lock  and  dam  at  Troy,  this  letter  is  unofficial.  It  is  written 
solely  in  order  that  you  may  be  able  to  take  whatever  action  may  be 
deemed  necessary,  in  order  that  there  may  be  no  delay  on  the  part 
of  the  United  States  from  this  cause  in  entering  upon  and  completing 
this  important  work. 

In  the  leases  held  by  certain  manufacturing  establishments  on  the 
east  and  west  banks  of  the  river  there  is  a  condition  as  follows: 

*  *  *  The  use  of  the  surplus  water  which  may  be  taken  at  the  east  end  of  the 
aforesaid  dam,  and  not  exceeding  one-half  of  the  quantity  which  may  be  taken  at 
both  ends  of  said  dam,  such  surplus  water  to  be  taken  and  drawn  from  the  said  dam 
at  such  place  and  in  such  manner,  and  be  discharged  at  such  place  and  in  such  man- 
ner as  the  acting  canal  commissioner  or  the  canal  commissioners  shall  from  time  to 
time  direct,  saving  and  reserving  to  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part  the  right  wholly 
to  resume  the  waters  hereby  conveyed  and  the  privileges  hereby  granted,  and  to 
control  and  limit  the  use  of  said  water  and  privileges  whenever,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
canal  board  or  of  the  legislature,  the  necessary  supply  of  water  for  use  of  any  State 
canal  or  the  safety  of  such  canal  or  works  connected  therewith  shall  render  such 
resumption,  control,  or  limitation  necessary.  And  in  case  any  such  resumption  shall 
be  made,  or  control  or  limitation  imposed,  no  compensation  or  damages  shall  be 
allowed  for  any  improvements  or  erections  made,  or  which  may  be  made  under  or  in 
consequence  of  this  grant  or  lease.  And  also  saving  and  reserving  to  the  said  parties 
of  the  first  part  the  right,  without  making  any  compensation  to  the  said  parties  of  the 
second  part  or  any  other  person  claiming  under  them,  wholly  to  abandon  or  destroy 
the  work,  by  the  construction  of  which  the  said  surplus  water  has  been  created, 
whenever,  in  the  opinion  of  the  canal  commissioners,  the  occupation  and  use  of  the 
said  work  shall  cease  to  be  advantageous  to  the  State. 

If  for  no  other  reason  than  to  fulfill  the  condition  of  the  termina- 
tion of  these  leases  on  the  part  of  the  State,  action  by  your  board 
would  seem  to  be  necessary. 

An  early  reply,  giving  your  views  on  the  matter,  will  be  highly 
appreciated. 

Very  respectfully, 

W.  M.  Black, 

Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army. 


Albany,  June  30,  1910. 

Hon.  W.  M.  Black, 

Corps  of  Engineers,  New  YorTc  City. 

Dear  Sir:  Your  communication  of  the  10th  instant,  which  was 
addressed  to  the  secretary  of  the  canal  board,  was  considered  by  the 
canal  board  at  its  last  meeting  and  was  referred  to  me.  I  beg  to 
state  that  as  to  the  question  of  disturbing  the  present  dam  and  lock 
prior  to  the  completion  of  the  new  structures  provided  for  in  the 
river  and  harbor  bill,  such  action  would  render  navigation  on  the 
canal  in  the  interim  impossible,  and  therefore  it  will  become  my  duty 
to  withhold  ^my  consent  from  any  such  program. 

As  to  the  other  question  propounded  by  you,  that  relating  to  the 
leases  held  by  certain  manufacturing  estabhshments,  the  question  is 
a  legal  one  and  has  been  submitted  by  me  to  the  attorney  general 
for  an  opinion.  I  shall  be  glad  to  act  upon  the  advice  of  the  attorney 
general  if  his  advice  is  such  as  to  direct  action,  and  shall  in  any  event 
advise  you  as  to  the  nature  of  the  opinion  when  it  shall  have  been 
received. 

Yours,  very  truly,  F.  C.  Stevens, 

Superintendent  of  Public  Worlcs. 


HUDSON  EIVEK,  NEW  YOBK.  7 

July  2,  1910. 

Hon.  Frederick  C.  Stevens, 

Superintendent  of  Public  Worlcs,  Albany,  N.  Y. 

Dear  Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your 
letter  of  June  30  stating  that  the  authorities  of  the  State  of  New 
York  dechne  to  take  action  in  the  matter  of  the  abandonment  of  the 
State  dam  at  Troy. 

One  of  the  reasons  given  is  that  navigation  in  the  canal  would  be 
impossible  were  the  present  lock  and  dam  removed  until  the  new  lock 
and  dam  are  opened.  I  would  invite  your  attention  to  the  fact  that 
should  the  old  lock  and  dam  be  destroyed  prior  to  the  opening  of  the 
new  canal,  navigation  could  be  continued  through  the  branch  of  the 
Erie  Canal,  ending  below  the  State  dam,  which  branch  is  at  present 
closed  temporarily.  It  would  further  become  the  duty  of  the  United 
States  to  see  that  the  commerce  of  the  river  should  be  interrupted  to 
the  least  extent  practicable.  In  so  far  as  I  am  informed,  the  project 
of  the  United  States  for  carrj^ing  on  the  improvement  contemplates 
the  retention  and  operation  of  the  existing  lock  and  dam  if  possible 
until  the  new  lock  and  dam  are  readv. 

I  regret  that  the  canal  board  should  not  have  seen  its  way  clear  to 
''abandon''  the  State  work,  in  accordance  with  the  verbal  assurances 
given  to  me  during  the  summer  of  1909,  since  the  board's  action  may 
defer  indefinitely  the  w^ork  of  the  United  States  in  the  improvement 
of  the  upper  Hudson. 

It  is  manifestly  inadvisable  for  the  United  States  to  start  this 
wo.rk  until  it  can  be  carried  on  freely  and  in  the  best  manner,  unham- 
pered by  any  State  work  or  State  obligations,  and  I  shall  so  recommend. 
Very  respectfully, 

W.  M.  Black, 
Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army. 


War  Department, 
United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  YorTc  City,  July  11, 1910. 

The  Chief  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army, 

Washington,  D,  C. 

General:  Referring  to  my  letter  of  Jul}^  2,  1910,  I  have  the  honor 
to  invite  your  attention  to  a  letter  dated  July  6,  1910,  received  from 
the  superintendent  of  public  works  of  the  State  of  New  York,  a  copy 
of  which  is  inclosed  herewith,  this  letter  being  a  reply  to  my  letter 
of  July  2,  1910,  a  copy  of  which  was  sent  to  you  on  that  date.  This 
office  has  received  official  notification  that  in  the  river  and  harbor 
act  approved  June  25,  1910,  there  was  appropriated  81,350,000  for 
maintaining  and  continuing  the  improvement  of  the  Hudson  River 
in  accordance  wdth  the  conditions  set  forth  in  House  Document  No. 
719,  Sixty-first  Congress,  second  session,  \nth  a  view  to  completing 
said  improvement  within  a  period  of  four  years. 

2.  The  work  to  be  entered- upon  first,  in  order  to  provide  a  12-foot 
depth  for  navigation  in  the  upper  Hudson,  TNithin  four  years,  is  the 
construction  of  a  new  dam  and  lock  at  Troy  and  the  opening  from  the 
lock  of  the  channel  to  the  south  of  it  to  connect  with  the  existing 


8 


HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


channel  in  the  Hudson  River  south  of  the  State  dam.  A  detailed 
project  for  this  work  is  well  advanced  and  will  be  submitted  at  an 
earlv  date.  It  is  proposed  to  place  the  new  lock  and  dam  in  the  pool 
of  the  present  State  dam  and  a  short  distance  to  the  north  of  it. 

3.  As  stated  m  the  report  mentioned  in  the  river  and  harbor;  act, 
certain  manufacturing  companies  have  leases  of  water  rights  from  the 
State  of  New  York,  the  life  of  which  will  end  when  the  State  abandons 
the  lock  and  dam.  Under  these  leases,  the  manufacturing  com- 
panies vary  the  height  of  the  pool  according  to  their  needs  by  means 
of  flashboards.  For  the  proper  conduct  of  the  work  of  improvement 
by  the  United  States,  it  win  be  necessary  for  the  United  States  to 
control  all  the  operations  at  the  State  dam  and  lock  and  to  remove 
both  of  said  structures  whenever  the  new  work  of  improvement 
within  the  limited  period  stated  shall  so  require. 

4.  It  is  important  that  the  navigation  of  the  Hudson  River  should 
be  interfered  with  as  little  as  practicable,  and  it  is  believed  that  the 
operations  of  the  manufacturers  using  the  power  from  the  existing 
State  dam  should  be  allowed  to  continue  as  long  as  the  paramount 
needs  of  the  improvement  will  so  warrant.  It  is  proposed  to  make 
provision  in  the  new  dam  for  the  development  of  power  and  to  lease 
power  rights  when  available,  in  accordance  with  law. 

5.  In  addition  to  the  desirability  of  controlling  the  lock  and  dam 
from  the  moment  that  the  work  of  improvement  begins  in  their 
immediate  vicinity,  it  would  be-  unwise  for  the  United  States  to 
undertake  the  work  at  all  until  the  State  has  made  a  formal  aban- 
donment of  the  lock  and  dam  and  thus  canceled  all  existing  power 
rights;  to  do  otherwise  might  involve  the  United  States  later  in  liti- 
gation. 

6.  It  is  respectfully  recommended  that  the  State  of  New  York  be 
requested  to  formally  abandon  the  State  lock  and  dam  at  Troy.  It 
is  further  recommended  that  on  such  abandonment  this  office  be 
authorized  to  maintain  and  operate  the  State  lock  and  dam,  as  a 
part  of  the  maintenance  of  the  improvement  and  navigation  of  the 
Hudson  River,  until  such  time  as  the  needs  of  the  improvement  shall 
require  the  removal  of  all  or  a  part  of  the  existing  works.  The  cost 
of  this  maintenance  and  operation  would  be  small  and  limited  to  the 
expense  of  the  lock  tenders'  salaries  and  such  small  repairs  as  may 
be  necessary.  This  cost  would  be  more  than  offset  by  the  saving 
to  the  United  States  which  would  result  from  the  complete  control  of 
the  structures. 

7.  It  is  not  believed  that  any  part  of  the  existing  works  would 
have  to  be  removed' during  the  present  season,  and  I  am  informed  by 
the  State  authorities  that  before  the  next  season  of  navigation  the 
commerce  coming  through  the  canals  down  the  Hudson,  which  is  the 
only  commerce  now  passing  through  the  lock,  can  be  provided  for 
temporarily  through  the  branch  of  the  Erie  Canal  opening  into  the 
Hudson  below  the  State  dam. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  M.  Black, 
Oolonel,  Corps  of  Engineers. 


HUDSON"  KIVER,  NEW  YOKK. 


9 


War  Department, 
Office  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers, 

Washington,  August  4,  1910. 

The  Secretary  of  War. 

Sir:  The  river  and  harbor  act  of  June  25,  1910,  contains  the  follow- 
ing item : 

^'Improving  Hudson  River,  New  York:  For  maintenance  and  con- 
tinuing improvement  in  accordance  with  the  report  submitted  in 
House  Document  Numbered  Seven  hundred  and  nineteen,  Sixty-first 
Congress,  second  session,  and  with  a  view  to  completing  said  improve- 
ment within  a  period  of  four  years,  one  milhon  three  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand  dollars:  Provided,  That  the  expenditure  of  the  amounts 
herein  and  hereafter  appropriated  for  said  improvement  shall  be  sub- 
ject to  the  conditions  set  forth  in  said  document:  Provided  further, 
That  the  general  plan  for  the  improvement  presented  in  said  docu- 
ment shall  be  subject  to  such  modification  as  to  the  location  of  the 
dam  and  in  matters  of  detail  as  may  be  recommended  by  the  Chief  of 
Engineers  and  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  War." 

2.  In  the  prosecution  of  the  project  tlius  adopted,  the  work  to  be 
entered  upon  first  is  the  construction  of  a  new  lock  and  dam  in  the 
vicinity  of  Troy,  where  there  is  an  existing  lock  and  dam  owned  by  the 
State  of  New  York,  which  structures  are  to  be  removed.  The  new 
lock  and  dam  is  to  be  placed  in  the  pool  of  the  existing  State  dam,  a 
short  distance  to  the  north  of  it,  and  for  the  proper  conduct  of  the 
work  it  will  be  necessary  for  the  United  States  to  control  from  the 
beginning  all  operations  of  the  State  lock  and  dam,  and  to  remove 
them  whenever  the  interests  of  the  new  improvement  so  require. 

3.  This  necessary  control  can  not  be  exercised,  however,  until  the 
State  of  New  York  formally  abandons  its  structures,  for  the  reason  that 
certain  manufacturing  companies  hold  leases  of  water  rights  from  the 
State,  under  which  they  control  to  a  certain  extent  the  height  of  the 
pool,  varying  it  according  to  their  needs.  If  begun  with  these  water 
rights  in  existence,  the  operations  of  the  Government  would  be  liable 
to  interference,  and  besides  there  would  be  a  possibility  of  litigation 
and  subsequent  claims  for  damages.  These  leases  expire  when  the 
State  abandons  the  lock  and  dam,  and  the  importance  to  the  United 
States  of  this  action  on  the  part  of  the  State  is,  therefore,  apparent. 

4.  The  formal  abandonment  of  the  structures  by  the  State  would 
work  no  hardship  on  the  holders  of  water-right  leases,  as  they  could 
be  permitted,  under  Government  license,  to  continue  using  water 
power  from  the  existing  dam  as  long  as  the  paramount  needs  of  the 
improvement  will  warrant  the  continuance  of  the  dam,  and  in  the 
new  structure  to  be  built  by  the  United  States  provision  will  be  made 
for  the  development  of  water  power  and  the  lease  thereof  for  indus- 
trial and  other  purposes.  Navigation  will  not  be  in  any  way  embar- 
rassed by  such  abandonment,  as  it  is  not  probable  that  any  part  of  the 
existing  structures  will  have  to  be  removed  during  the  present  season, 
and  before  the  opening  of  the  next  season  it  is  expected  that  the  com- 
merce using  the  structures  can  be  temporarily  accommodated,  until  the 
Government  works  are  in  operation,  by  the  branch  of  the  Erie  Canal 
tapping  the  Hudson  River  below  the  State  dam. 


-10 


HUDSON  RIVEE,  NEW  YORK. 


5.  I  have,  therefore,  the  honor  to  recommend: 

(a)  That  the  work  of  improvement  in  the  vicinity  of  Troy,  under 
the  project  adopted  by  the  foregoing  provision  of  the  river  and  harbor 
act,  be  not  commenced  until  the  State  of  New  York  has  formally  and 
e gaily  abandoned  its  existing  lock  and  dam  at  Troy,  and  has  extin- 
guished all  water-power  rights  and  })rivileges  affected  by  the  improve- 
ment, in  order  that  the  department  may  have  unrestricted  freedom 
of  action  in  prosecuting  the  work. 

(b)  That  tlie  governor  of  New  York  be  advised  of  this  decision,  with 
the  reasons  therefor,  and  of  the  desirability  of  the  action  indicated  in 
the  foregoing  paragraph  being  taken  by  the  proper  authorities  of  the 
State  at  an  early  day. 

(c)  That  upon  the  formal  abandonment  of  the  State  lock  and  dam 
these  structures  be  maintained  and  operated  by  the  United  States  for 
the  accommodation  of  public  navigation  until  such  time  as  the  needs 
of  the  new  work  of  improvement  shall  require  their  removal. 

Verv  respectfully, 

W.  H.  BlXBY, 

Chief  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army. 

[First  indorsement.] 

War  Department,  August  5,  1910. 

Respectfully  referred  to  Hon.  Charles  E.  Hughes,  governor  of  the 
State  of  New  York,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  with  request  for  an  expression  of 
his  views  hereon. 

For  the  Secretary  of  War  in  his  absence : 

John  C.  Scofield, 

Assistant  and  Chief  Cleric. 


Albany,  N.  Y.,  July  6,  1910. 

Col.  W.  M.  Black, 

Corps  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army, 

New  Yorlc  City. 

Dear  Sir:  I  note  the  contents  of  vour  letter  of  the  2d  instant,  and 
have  to  say  that  I  think  you  have  placed  a  misapprehension  if  not  a 
misconstruction  on  my  letter  addressed  to  you  in  reply  to  your  com- 
munication to  the  canal  board,  which  by  that  body  was  referred  to  me. 

The  State  authorities  desire  to  cooperate  in  every  way  with  the  Fed- 
eral authorities  in  connection  with  the  construction  of  the  lock  and  dam 
and  otherwise  improving  the  Hudson  River  above  Troy.  There  is  no 
doubt  but  what  the  attitude  of  the  canal  board  will  be  one  favorable 
to  the  formal  abandonment  of  the  present  lock  and  dam,  as  soon  as 
the  work  is  progressed  to  such  point  as  that  the  way  will  be  open 
legally  to  take  such  step.  There  is  no  doubt,  either,  but  that  the  State 
has  full  authority  to  cancel  water  leases,  nor  is  there  any  doubt  that 
steps  will  be  taken  to  this  end  as  soon  as  the  status  of  the  work  is  such 
as  to  dictate  such  action,  and  to  give  such  action  full  force  under  the 
terms  of  the  leases. 

The  question  of  maintaining  navigation  on  the  Champlain  Canal 
during  the  period  of  constructing  a  new  dam  and  lock  will  be  simplified 
if,  as  I  have  to-day  been  assured  by  Messrs.  Barnes  and  Ripley,  of  the 
advisory  board,  it  will  be,  the  lock  work  on  contract  2  at  Waterford 
shall  be  completed,  thus  permitting  an  entrance  to  the  Champlain 
Canal  by  way  of  the  Erie  side  cut  at  Watervliet. 


HUDSON  KIVEK,  NEW  YOEK. 


11 


The  steps  desired  by  you  to  be  taken  will  be  matters  of  form,  and 
I  again  assure  you  that  the  State  officials  will  cooperate  with  the 
Federal  Government  to  the  fullest  extent  in  such  matters. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

F.  C.  Stevens. 
Superintendent  of  Public  Worlcs. 


Albany,  N.  Y.,  August  10,  1910. 

The  Secretary  War, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

Sir:  Gov.  Hughes  directs  me  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  the 
letter  addressed  to  you  by  W.  H.  Bixby,  Chief  of  Engineers,  United 
States  Army,  under  date  of  the  4th  instant,  with  respect  to  the  pro- 
posed Hudson  River  improvement,  which  you  have  forwarded  with 
your  indorsement  asking  for  the  governor's  views.  Gov.  Hughes  has 
taken  the  matter  under  advisement  and  \\\\\  communicate  with  you 
as  soon  as  possible. 

Respectfully,  yours, 

George  Curtis  Treadwell, 

Secretary  to  the  Governor. 


Albany,  X.  Y.,  Octoher  26,  1910. 

Col.  W.  M.  Black,  New  YorTc  City. 

Dear  Colonel:  The  State  engineer  advises  me  that  the  secretary 
of  the  New  York  Board  of  Trade  and  Transportation  has  \\Titten  him, 
stating  that  it  is  his  understanding  that  the  State  engineer  is  bolding 
up  the  improvement  of  the  Hudson  River  at  Troy,  proposed  to  be 
to  be  undertaken  by  the  United  States  Government.  Mr.  Williams 
wishes  me  to  say  to  you  that  the  letter  of  the  Secretary  of  War  to 
Gov.  Hughes  has  been  referred  to  the  canal  board  for  action,  and  that 
said  board  has  appointed  a  committee  to  confer  with  the  Secretary  of 
War,  the  personnel  of  this  committee  being  the  attorney  general,  the 
superintendent  of  public  works,  and  the  State  engineer.  The  com- 
mittee has  not  as  3'et  acted,  as  it  is  awaiting  the  return  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  War  from  a  trip  abroad.  As  soon  as  he  returns  an  effort 
will  be  made  to  secure  a  pereonal  interview  T^ith  him  in  the  hopes  of 
clearing  up  some  legal  questions,  so  that  your  work  will  not  be  inter- 
fered with. 

The  purpose  of  this  letter  is  that  in  case  the  Xew  York  Board  of 
Trade  and  Transportation  should  take  the  matter  up  with  you,  you 
can  explain  the  State's  reason  for  dela}". 

Trusting  this  will  make  clear  to  you  the  reasons  for  delay  in  action 
by  the  State  officers,  I  am. 

Very  truly,  yours,  M.  G.  Barnes. 

[First  indorsement.] 

War  Department, 
United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  Yorlc,  N.  Y.,  Octoher  27,  1910. 

Respectfully  forwarded  to  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  United  States 
Army,  for  his  information. 

W.  M.  Black, 
Colonel,  Cor'ps  of  Engineers. 


12 


HUDSON  KIVEK,  NEW  YORK. 


Albany,  N.  Y.,  November  23,  1910. 

Hon.  Jacob  M.  Dickinson, 

Secretary  of  War,  WasJdngton,  D.  C. 

Dear  Sir:  Pursuant  to  assurances  given  you  by  Hon.  Edward  R. 
O'Malley,  attorney  general  for  the  State  of  New  York,  and  myself 
during  our  recent  visit  to  your  department,  with  respect  to  the  atti- 
tude of  the  canal  officials  regarding  the  water  leases  covering  surplus 
water  at  either  end  of  the  dam  in  the  Hudson  River  at  Troy,  I  wish 
to  advise  you  that  the  water  leases  have  been  formally  canceled  by 
the  canal  board  and  the  lock  and  dam  ordered  abandoned  by  the 
State,  and  that  formal  notices  of  cancellation  have  been  served  upon 
the  leaseholders. 

For  your  information  and  your  records,  I  hand  3'ou  herewith  cer- 
tified copy  of  the  resolution  of  the  canal  board,  together  with  copies 
of  notices  served  upon  the  leaseholders,  and  affidavit  of  a  subordinate 
in  this  department  who  personally  served  these  notices  and  resolu- 
tion. 

Yours,  very  truly, 

F.  C.  Stevens, 
Superintendent  of  Puhlic  Worlcs. 

[Second  indorsement.] 

War  Department, 
Office  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers, 

Washington,  November  29,  1910. 

Respectfully  referred  to  Col.  W.  M.  Black,  Corps  of  Engineers, 
attention  being  invited  to  papers  on  the  subject  recently  referred 
to  him. 

By  command  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers : 

E.  N.  Johnston, 
Captain,  Corps  of  Engineers. 

[Third  indorsement.] 

War  Department, 
United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  Yorlc,  N.  Y.,  December  6,  1910. 

1.  Respectfully  returned  to  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  United  States 
Army. 

2.  In  a  personal  interview  yesterday  with  Mr.  F.  C.  Stevens, 
superintendent  of  public  works  of  the  State  of  New  York,  Mr.  Stevens 
stated  to  me  that  it  was  the  expectation  of  his  office  to  have  the 
branch  of  the  Erie  Canal  which  follows  the  west  bank  of  the  Hudson 
River  and  lies  entirely  outside  of  the  bed  of  that  stream  between 
Waterford  and  Albany  open  for  navigation  by  the  shipping  passing 
through  the  Champlain  Canal  about  May  15,  1911,  and  to  operate 
that  branch  during  such  time  as  may  be  required  by  the  United 
States  to  complete  the  new  lock  and  dam  at  Troy  and  to  open  navi- 
gation through  them;  that  the  existing  State  lock  and  dam  at  Troy 
are  now  definitely  officially  abandoned  as  a  part  of  the  canal  system, 
and  that  they  may  be  taken  possession  of  oy  the  United  States  at 
any  time  and  may  be  removed  by  the  United  States  as  obstructions 
to  navigation  at  any  time  the  United  States  may  so  desire;  that  the 


HUDSON  EIVEK,  NEW  YORK. 


13 


canal  board  is  not  empowered  by  law  to  transfer  to  the  United  States, 
or  to  any  other  party,  any  land  or  riparian  rights,  but  that  the  canal 
board  is  prepared,  if  so  desired,  to  recommend  to  the  Legislature  of 
the  State  of  New  York  the  passage  of  an  act  in  this  case  similar  to 
chapter  373  of  the  laws  of  the  State  of  New  York,  which  is  an  act  to 
authorize  the  conveyance  of  land  in  the  city  of  Buffalo  to  the  United 
States,  and  became  a  law  April  26,  1904,  a  copy  of  which  is  inclosed; 
and  that  he  could  assure  me  that  the  State  otHcials  would  cordially 
recommend  such  an  enactment. 

3.  Under  the  above  conditions,  I  have  the  honor  to  recommend 
that  the  Chief  of  Engineers  formally  request  the  superintendent  of 
public  works  of  the  State  of  New  York  to  turn  over  to  a  representa- 
tive of  the  United  States,  to  be  designated  by  this  office,  the  custody 
of  the  existing  dam  and  lock  at  Troy,  together  with  all  buildings  and 
real  property  appurtenant  thereto;  and,  further,  to  prepare  and  secure, 
if  possible,  the  enactment  of  an  act  similar  to  the  one  inclosed,  which 
would  transfer  to  the  United  States  the  real  property  of  the  State 
now  occupied  by  the  existing  lock  and  dam  and  appurtenant  build- 
ings at  Troy,  and  such  other  real  property  and  rights  as  the  State 
may  have  in  the  lands  under  water  and  above  water  of  the  Hudson 
River,  which  are  to  be  occupied  by  the  lock  and  dam  and  its  appur- 
tenant structures  which  the  United  States  proposes  to  build  to 
replace  the  present  State  lock  and  dam  on  such  a  site  as  may  be 
selected  by  the  United  States  within  that  reach  of  the  river  which 
is  included  between  the  north  and  south  linits  of  the  city  of  Troy, 
a  full  description  of  said  site  to  be  furnished  to  the  State  authorities 
as  soon  as  the  location  has  been  definitely  fixed  and  the  plans  for 
the  new  lock  and  dam  definitely  approved,  together  with  such  real 

Eroperty  existing  at  the  site  of  the  present  lock  and  dam  as  it  may 
e  advisable  for  the  United  States  to  use  or  remove  in  connection 
with  the  opening  of  navigation  through  the  new  lock  and  dam. 

4.  In  this  connection  attention  is  invited  to  the  inclosed  copy  of 
section  75  of  the  Public  Lands  Law  of  the  State  of  New  York,  chap- 
ter 50,  Laws  of  1909,  article  6,  under  which  the  commissioners  of 
the  land  office  may  authorize  the  use  of  lands  of  the  State  under 
water  for  the  purpose  of  the  improvement  of  navigation,  when  the 
same  is  carried  on  by  the  Federal  or  State  Government.  It  is  further 
understood  that  under  the  general  laws  the  United  States  now  pos- 
sesses the  right  to  erect  structures  necessar}^  in  aid  of  navigation  on 
lands  under  water,  whether  of  public  or  private  ownership.  It 
would  seem,  therefore,  that  even  in  the  event  of  delay  or  failure  in 
the  passage  of  an  act  by  the  legislature  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
the  United  States  has  the  legal  authority  to  commence  the  construc- 
tion of  the  new  lock  and  dam  without  necessarily  awaiting  the  passage 
of  such  an  act. 

5.  In  the  event  of  the  action  above  outlined  meeting  the  approval 
of  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  further  authority  will  be  requested  by  this 
office  to  maintain  and  operate  the  State  lock  and  dam  at  Troy  to 
such  an  extent  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  needs  of  the  United  States 
and  in  the  interests  of  navigation  until  the  new  works  shall  have 
progressed  to  a  point  which  shall  require  the  removal  of  the  existing 
lock  and  dam. 

W.  M.  Black, 
Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers, 


14 


HUDSON  KIVEK,  NEW  YORK. 


By  the  attorney  general : 

Whereas  by  the  provisions  of  chapter  147  of  the  laws  of  1903,  and 
the  acts  amendatory  thereof  and  supplemental  thereto,  the  State 
has  directed  the  improvement  of  that  portion  of  the  canal  system 
of  the  State  which  lies  in  the  thread  of  the  Hudson  Eiver  from 
Congress  street,  in  the  city  of  Troy,  to  Waterford;  and 

Whereas  in  the  carrying  out  of  that  improvement  so  directed  by  the 
legislature,  it  now  is  apparent  that  the  existing  State  dam  and 
lock  at  Troy  must  be  destroyed;  and 

Whereas  on  the  2d  day  of  January,  1832,  and  on  the  26th  day  of  No- 
vember, 1835,  the  people  of  the  State  of  New  York  by  the  then 
canal  commissioners  executed  two  leases,  the  first  to  the  Lansing- 
burgh  Dry  Dock  &  Hydraulic  Co.  and  the  second  to  one  George 
Tibbitts,  whereby  there  was  conveyed  to  said  parties  all  (tf  the 
surplus  water  created  by  the  said  Troy  dam  and  lock;  and 

WTiereas,  in  both  of  said  leases  certain  rights  and  privileges  were  re- 
served to  the  State  by  the  following  clause,  incorporated  in  both 
instruments:  Saving  and  reserving  to  the  said  parties  of  the  first 
part  the  right  wholly  to  resume  the  waters  hereby  conveyed  and 
the  privileges  hereby  granted,  and  to  control  and  limit  the  use  of 
said  water  and  privileges  whenever  in  the  opinion  of  the  canal  board 
or  of  the  legislature  the  necessary  supply  of  water  for  use  of  any 
State  canal,  or  the  safety  of  such  canal,  or  works  connected  there- 
with, shall  render  such  resumption,  control,  or  limitation  neces- 
sary; and  in  case  any  such  resumption  shall  be  made,  or  limitation 
or  control  imposed,  no  compensation  or  damages  shall  be  allowed 
for  any  improvements  or  erections  made,  or  which  may  be  made, 
under  or  in  consequence  of  this  grant  or  lease.  And  also  saving 
and  reserving  to  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part  the  right,  without 
making  any  compensation  to  the  said  party  of  the  second  part,  or 
any  other  person  claiming  under  him,  wholly  to  abandon  or  destroy 
the  works,  by  the  construction  of  which  the  said  surplus  water  has 
been  created,  whenever,  in  the  opinion  of  the  canal  commissioners, 
the  occupation  and  use  of  the  said  works  shall  cease  to  be  advan- 
tageous to  the  State";  and 

Whereas  the  honorable  Frederick  C.  Stevens,  superintendent  of  pub- 
lic works,  as  successor  to  the  said  canal  commissioners,  has  this  day 
notified  this  board  that  in  his  opinion  the  occupation  and  use  of  the 
structures  by  whose  maintenance  the  surplus  water  conveyed  by 
said  leases  has  been  created,  have  ceased  to  be  advantageous  to  the 
State,  and  by  virtue  of  the  authority  and  power  reserved  to  him  as 
successor  to  the  canal  commissioners,  has  recommended  that  the 
said  structures  be  wholly  abandoned  and  that  their  destruction  be 
authorized  and  approved :  Now  be  it 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  board  that  the  whole  of  the 
surplus  water  created  by  said  dam  and  lock  is  now  necessary  for  the 
use  of  the  canals  of  the  State  and  the  works  connected  therewith,  au- 
thorized and  directed  by  said  chapter  147  of  the  laws  of  1903  and 
the  acts  amendatory  thereof  and  supplemental  thereto,  and  that  the 
said  surplus  water  be,  and  the  same  hereby  is,  wholly  resumed. 

And  he  it  jurther  resolved,  That  the  said  dam  and  lock  by  the  con- 
struction of  which  the  said  surplus  water  has  been  created,  be,  and  the 
same  hereby  are,  abandoned,  and  the  destruction  thereof  be,  and  the 
same  is  hereby,  authorized. 


HUDSON  KIVEK,  NEW  YOKK. 


15 


And  he  itjurther  resolved,  That  the  superintendent  of  public  works 
be,  and  he  hereby  is,  directed  to  serve  a  copy  of  this  resolution  upon 
the  said  lessees,  their  successors  or  assigns. 

On  calling  the  ayes  and  noes  the  resolution  was  adopted  by  the 
foUowdng  vote:  Ayes,  Messrs.  Koenig,  Clark,  Williams,  Dunn,  O'Mal- 
ley,  Frank  M.  Williams,  and  Stevens — 6;  noes,  0. 


Bureau  of  Canal  Affairs, 

Albany,  November  22,  1910. 

State  of  New  York,  Comptroller's  Office,  ss: 

I  have  compared  the  annexed  extract  from  the  minutes  of  the 
proceedings  of  the  canal  board,  November  22,  1910,  with  the  original 
on  file  in  this  office,  and  do  hereby  certify  the  same  to  be  a  correct 
transcript  therefrom,  and  of  the  whole  thereof. 

In  witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  my 
official  seal  on  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

[seal.]  Clark  Willlvms, 

Comptroller. 


State  of  New  York, 

Albany,  ,  — . 

To  George  Tibbitts ,his  successors  or  assigns, Le  Grand  C.  Tibbitts,and  all 
parties  in  interest,  as  owner  or  owners,  holder  or  holders  of  the  lease 
issued  to  George  Tibbitts  by  the  canal  commissioners  of  the  State  of  New 
YorTc  on  the  26th  day  of  Noveniber,  1835,  talce  notice: 

By  direction  of  the  canal  board  I  hereby  serve  upon  you  a  certified 
copy  of  the  resolution  passed  by  that  board  on  Tuesday,  the  22d  day 
of  November,  1910,  declaring  that  the  waters,  surplus  and  otherwise, 
impounded  as  a  result  of  the  construction  and  maintenance  of  the 
dam  and  lock  in  the  Hudson  River  at  Troy,  have  been  wholly  re- 
sumed; and  also,  approving  and  authorizing  the  abandonment  and 
destruction  of  the  said  dam  and  lock. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  the 
official  seal  of  said  office  this  22d  day  of  November,  1910. 

[seal.]  F.  C.  Stevens, 

Superintendent  of  Public  Worlcs. 


State  of  New  York, 

Albany,  ,  — . 

To  the  Lansingburgh  Dry  Doclc  <&  Hydraulic  Co.,  to  the  present  board  of 
directors  and  officers,  and  all  parties  in  interest,  of  the  Troy  Hydraulic 
Co.,  and  to  all  other  persons  as  owners  or  holders  of  the  lease  issued  to 
the  Lansingburgh  Dry  Doclc  <&  Hydraulic  Co.  by  the  canal  commis- 
sioners of  the  State  of  New  YorJc  on  the  2d  day  of  January,  1832,  talce 
notice: 

By  direction  of  the  canal  board,  I  hereby  serve  upon  you  a  certified 
copy  of  the  resolution  passed  by  that  board  on  Tuesday,  the  22d  day 
of  November,  1910,  declaring  that  the  waters,  surplus  and  otherwise, 
impounded  as  a  result  of  the  construction  and  maintenance  of  the  dam 


16 


HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


and  lock  in  the  Hudson  River  at  Troy,  have  heen  wholly  resumed;  and  ' 
also,  approving  and  authorizing  the  abandonment  anS  destruction  of 
the  said  dam  and  lock. 

In  testimony  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  affixed  the 
official  seal  of  said  office  this  22d  day  of  November,  1910. 

[seal.]  F.C.Stevens, 

Superintendent  of  Public  Worlcs. 


United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  York,  December  6,  1910. 
State  of  New  York,  County  of  Albany,  ss:  ■ 

John  E.  Winne,  of  the  city  and  county  of  Albany,  and  State  of  New 
York,  being  duly  sworn,  deposes  and  says:  That  he  is  over  the  age  of 
21  years,  and  is  employed  in  the  office  of  the  superintendent  of  public 
works  of  the  State  of  New  York;  that  he  did  on  the  22d  day  of  Novem- 
ber, 1910,  at  No.  201  Sixteenth  Street,  in  the  city  of  Watervliet, 
Albany  County,  N.  Y.,  duly  serve  a  certified  copy  of  the  annexed 
resolution  of  the  Canal  Board  of  the  State  of  New  York,  passed  at  its 
meeting  held  on  the  22d  day  of  November,  1910,  on  the  Troy  Hy- 
draulic Co.,  by  personally  delivering  to  and  leaving  with  Frederick 
W.  Orr,  treasurer  of  said  comj)any,  said  certified  copy  of  said  resolu- 
tion, together  with  a  notice  signed  by  the  superintendent  of  public 
works  and  dated  November  22,  1910,  of  which  the  annexed  is  a  copy. 
Deponent  further  says  that  he  is  personally  acquainted  with  said 
Frederick  W.  Orr,  the  person  servecf  by  him  as  aforesaid,  and  knows 
him  to  be  the  treasurer  of  said  Troy  Hydraulic  Co. 

Deponent  further  says  that  on  the  23d  day  of  November,  1910,  he 
duly  served,  at  the  office  of  the  George  M.  Tibbitts  estate  in  the  Hall 
Building,  in  the  city  of  Troy,  N.  Y.,  a  certified  copy  of  the  annexed 
resolution  of  the  canal  board,  duly  passed  as  aforesaid,  on  the  George 
M.  Tibbitts  estate,  by  personally  delivering  to  and  leaving  with 
George  M.  Bovie,  manager  of  said  estate,  said  certified  copy  of  said 
resolution,  together  with  a  notice  signed  by  the  superintendent  of 
public  Vv^orks  and  dated  November  22,  1910,  of  which  the  annexed  is 
a  copy.  Deponent  further  says  that  he  is  personally  acquainted  with 
said  George  M.  Bovie,  the  person  served  by  him  as  aforesaid,  and 
knows  him  to  be  the  manager  of  said  Tibbitts  estate;  and  said 
George  M.  Bovie  duly  stated  to  deponent  that  he  was  such  manager 
and  was  authorized  to  and  did  duly  accept  service  as  such  manager 
for  and  on  behalf  of  said  Tibbitts  estate. 

John  E.  Winne. 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  before  me  this  23d  day  of  November,  1910. 

[seal.]  Alfred  M.  O'Neill, 

Notary  Public. 


Executive  Chamber, 
Albany,  N.  Y.,  April  28,  1911. 

Hon.  W.  H.  BiXBY, 

Chief  of  Engineers,  TTar  Department,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Sir:  I  transmit  herewith,  in  accordance  with  the  terms  thereof  and 
with  my  approval,  copy  of  a  resolution  adopted  by  the  canal  board  of 


HUDSON  KIVEK,  NEW  YORK. 


17 


this  State  at  its  meeting  held  on  the  26th  day  of  April,  1911,  relative 
to  the  construction  of  a  dam  across  the  Hudson  River  in  the  vicinity 
of  Troy. 

Very  respectfully,  yours,  John  A.  Dix. 

[First  indorsement.] 

War  Department, 
Office  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers, 

Washington,  April  29,  1911. 

Respectfully  referred  to  Col.  W.  M.  Black,  Corps  of  Engineers,  for 
early  remark. 

By  command  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers : 

J.  B.  Cavanaugh, 
Major,  Corps  of  Engineers, 

[Second  indorsement.] 

United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  Yorl,  May  3,  1911, 
Respectfully  returned  to  the  Chief  of  Engineers  inviting  attention 
to  report  of  this  date. 

W.  M.  Black, 
Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army. 

By  the  State  engineer  and  surveyor: 

Whereas  at  a  meeting  of  the  canal  board  held  on  November  22,  1910, 
a  resolution  was  adopted:  ''That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  board  that 
the  whole  of  the  surplus  water  created  by  the  said  dam  and  lock  is 
now  necessary  for  the  use  of  the  canals  of  the  State  and  the  work 
connected  therewith,  authorized  and  directed  by  said  chapter  147 
of  the  laws  of  1903,  and  the  acts  amendatory  thereof  and  supple- 
mental thereto,  and  that  the  said  surplus  water  be,  and  the  same 
hereby  is,  wholly  resumed;  and  be  it  further  Resolved,  That  the 
said  dam  and  lock,  by  the  construction  of  which  the  said  surplus 
water  has  been  created,  be,  and  the  same  hereby  are,  abandoned, 
and  the  destruction  thereof  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  authorized.'' 
And, 

Whereas  it  is  the  policy  of  this  State  to  conserve  its  natural  resources 
and  develop  them  for  the  benefit  of  the  people;  and 

Whereas  it  may  be  claimed  that  the  above  resolution  may  interfere 
with  such  policy  and  permit  the  use  of  such  water  by  some  other 
agency  than  the  State,  and  may  remove  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
State  of  New  York  an  integral  part  of  the  canal  system  of  the  State^ 
and,  it  being  considered  that  such  an  abandonment  is  neither 
expedient,  desirable,  nor  economical:  Therefore  be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  resolution  above  mentioned,  adopted  November 
22,  1910,  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  rescinded;  and  be  it 

Further  resolved.  That,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  governor,  a 
communication  be  forwarded  to  the  Secretary  of  War  of  the  United 
States  and  the  Chief  of  Engineers  of  the  United  States  Army,  notifying 
them  of  this  resolution  and  further  requesting  them  to  so  amend  the 
plans  for  the  work  calculated  to  be  performed  by  the  United  States 
Government  under  an  act  passed  by  Congress  known  as  H.  R.  20886 
(Public,  No.  254),  so  as  to  confine  said  improvement  of  the  Hudson 

54559— S.  Doc.  887,  62-2  2 


18 


HUDSON  KIVER,  NEW  YOEK. 


River  to  the  location  south  of  the  dam  to  be  built  between  Albany 
and  Troy  to  take  the  place  of  the  existing  dam. 

On  calling  the  ayes  and  noes  the  resolution  was  adopted  by  the 
following  vote:  Ayes,  Messrs.  Kennedy,  Carmody,  Treman,  and 
Bensel — 4;  noes,  0. 

Upon  motion  the  secretary  was  directed  to  forward  a  copy  of  the 
above  to  his  excellency  the  governor  for  approval  and  transmission 
to  the  Secretary  of  War  of  the  United  States  and  the  Chief  of  Engi- 
neers of  the  United  States  Army. 

I  hereby  approve  the  above  resolution. 

John  A.  Dix, 
Governor  of  the  State  of  New  Yorlc. 

April  28,  1911. 


War  Department, 
United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  Yorlc  City,  May  3,  1911. 
The  Chief  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

General:  Complying  with  your  indorsement  of  April  29,  1911, 
on  copy  of  E.  D.  7771/326,  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  the  following 
report : 

2.  The  Hudson  River  is  navigated  in  fact  and  is  a  navigable 
waterway  of  the  United  States.  Between  its  mouth  and  Fort 
Edward  it  forms  an  important  part  of  a  continuous  waterway  which 
connects  New  York  Harbor  with  the  St.  Lawrence  River  via  the 
Champlain  Canal,  the  Narrows  of  Lake  Champlain,  Lake  Champlain, 
and  the  Canadian  waterways,  natural  and  .artificial,  between  the  foot 
of  Lake  Champlain  and  the  St.  Lawrence.  In  the  unimproved  river 
the  tide  ebbed  and  flowed  as  far  as  the  rapids  at  Waterford,  4  miles 
above  Troy. 

3.  In  1816  and  1817  the  construction  of  the  Erie  Canal  and  of  the 
Champlain  Canal  from  Albany  to  Lake  Erie  and  Lake  Champlain, 
respectively,  was  authorized  by  the  State  of  New  York.  The 
canals  were  declared  open  to  navigation  by  an  act  of  assembly  of 
1827,  though  boats  had  passed  through  from  Lake  Erie  to  the  Hudson 
in  1825. 

4.  The  State  dam  at  Troy,  with  its  lock,  was  completed  in  1823,  as 
a  part  of  the  canal  systems.  This  dam  was  on  the  site  of  a  wing  dam 
constructed  by  the  State  some  years  earlier  as  a  part  of  the  river 
improvements  inaugurated  in  1797.  In  1831  Mr.  De  Witt  Clinton, 
jr.,  was  employed  by  the  United  States  to  make  a  survey  of  the 
upper  Hudson  with  a  view  to  its  improvement.  His  report  was 
submitted  to  Congress  March  30,  1832,  and  was  printed  as  House 
Document  189,  War  Department,  Twenty-second  Congress,  first 
session.  The  survey  extended  from  Waterford  to  below  New  Balti- 
more. In  1834  Congress  made  an  appropriation  for  improving  the 
Hudson  in  accordance  with  this  report.  There  is  no  record  found 
that  any  work  was  carried  on  under  this  appropriation  above  the 
State  dam  at  Troy.  Since  1834  the  State  of  New  York  has  at  various 
times  constructed  works  for  the  improvement  of  the  river  between 


HUDSON  EIVEK,  NEW  YOKK. 


19 


the  State  dam  and  Coxsackie,  in  accordance  with  the  United  States 
projects. 

5.  In  1909,  the  bridge  over  the  Hudson  at  Waterford  was  burned 
and  a  permit  was  issued  under  date  of  October  7,  1909,  by  the  Secre- 
tary of  War,  authorizing  the  reconstruction  of  the  bridge  with  certain 
conditions  as  to  width  of  span,  clear  height  above  the  water  surface, 
and  as  to  the  erection  of  a  draw  span  when  required.  On  June  10, 
1910,  a  permit  was  issued  by  the  Secretary  of  War  to  certain  contract- 
ors to  deposit  dredged  spoil  temporarily  in  the  river  bed  at  Lansing- 
burg  opposite  Waterford. 

6.  From  the  above  it  will  be  noted  that  the  United  States  has  exer- 
cised jurisdiction  over  the  river  and  has  authorized  improvements 
in  it  as  far  up  as  Waterford,  4  miles  above  Troy;  and  that  the  State  of 
New  York  has  cooperated  with  the  United  States  in  the  improvement 
of  the  river  below  the  State  dam.  The  right  of  the  United  States 
to  improve  the  entire  river  seems  undoubted,  though,  excepting  in  the 
cases  of  the  appropriation  of  1834,  and  of  the  Waterford  Bridge,  and 
of  the  deposit  of  dredged  materials  above  cited,  all  works  in  the  river 
above  the  State  dam  have  been  left  to  the  care  of  the  State. 

7.  No  record  is  found  in  this  office  of  action  by  the  State  authorities 
with  a  view  to  having  the  United  States  undertake  the  work  of  con- 
struction of  the  new  lock  and  dam  at  Troy.  I  am  informed,  however, 
that  Congress  undertook  this  work  at  the  solicitation  of  these  authori- 
ties. Certainly,  in  view  of  the  statements  made  by  the  then  Chief 
of  Engineers,  Gen.' Mackenzie,  in  his  letter  transmitting  the  reports 
on  the  examination  and  survey  of  the  Hudson,  printed  in  House 
Document  No.  539,  Fifty-ninth  Congress,  second  session,  the  ques- 
tion of  undertaking  by  the  United  States  the  improvement  of  the 
portion  of  the  river  above  the  northern  limit  of  the  reach  under  im- 
provement by  the  Federal  Government  up  to  that  time  must  have 
received  serious  consideration  by  Congress.  All  of  the  action  by  the 
State  authorities  up  to  January  1,  1911,  when  the  State  administra- 
tion was  changed,  was  in  harmony  with  the  understanding  that  this 
work  was  undertaken  by  the  United  States  with  the  consent  and  at  the 
request  of  the  representatives  of  the  State  charged  with  the  construc- 
tion of  the  canal  system,  as  well  as  with  the  approval  of  the  then 
governor. 

8.  Congress  having  acted  in  the  matter,  further  action  by  Congress 
would  be  required  in  order  that  the  wishes  of  the  present  State  au- 
thorities, as  embodied  in  the  letter  of  Hon.  John  A.  Dix,  governor  of 
New  York,  dated  April  28,  1911,  with  its  inclosure  (E.  D.  7771/326 
and  7771/327),  can  be  complied  with.  It  is  also  a  matter  of  some 
uncertainty  legally  whether  the  canal  board  can  rescind  an  action 
of  this  character  taken  formally  by  the  same  body  at  an  earlier  date. 
The  act  of  Congress  requires  that  the  conditions  named  in  House 
Document  No.  719,  Sixty-first  Congress,  second  session,  shall  be  com- 
plied with  before  the  sum  appropriated  shall  be  available  for  the  work 
of  improvement  under  the  project.  The  condition  as  to  the  extin- 
guishment of  water-power  rights  and  privileges  was  complied  with 
in  the  resolution  of  the  canal  board  of  November  22,  1910,  and  the 
service  of  notice  on  the  same  date  on  the  lessees  of  the  surplus  water 
at  Troy  of  the  revocation  of  their  leases.  Since  that  date  the  United 
States  has  entered  into  contracts  for  various  works  of  the  improve- 
ment and  has  expended  funds  in  the  preparation  of  the  detailed  plans 
for  the  work  required. 


20 


HUDSON  EIVEK,  NEW  YORK. 


9.  Should  it  be  deemed  advisable  to  refer  this  matter  to  Congress 
with  a  view  to  a  reversal  of  the  action  taken,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
consider  how  the  interests  of  navigation  can  be  best  served.  Though 
an  adequate  lock  and  dam  at  Troy  will  so  improve  the  reach  between 
Troy  and  Waterford  as  to  permit  vessels  of  12  tol4  feet  draft  and 
of  2  000  to  3  000  tons  burden  to  reach  Waterford  and  make  the 
banks  of  the  reach  in  Troy,  Green  Island.  Cohoes,  and  Waterford 
available  for  manufacturing  sites,  and  will  thus  promote  the  inter- 
ests of  commerce,  the  extent  of  the  probable  increase  of  water-borne 
transportation  due  only  to  the  opening  of  this  reach  is  too  problem- 
atical to  warrant  the  expense.  This  expense  is  however,  warranted 
and  necessitated  by  the  fact  that  the  reach  in  question  forms  the 
terminus  of  the  Eiie  and  Champlain  barge  canals  the  latter  of 
which  occupies  the  canalized  bed  of  the  Hudson  as  far  as  Fort 
Edward  33  miles  above  Waterford,  or  37.4  miles  above  the  State 
dam  at  Troy,  while  the  purely  canal  section  from  Fort  Edward 
to  Whitehall  is  only  22.2  miles  long.  As  stated  earlier  in  this  report, 
this  latter  canal  is  a  section  of  a  waterway  connecting  the  St.  Law- 
rence River  with  New  York,  and  thus  with  the  entire  seaboard  of 
the  United  States.  It  is  believed  to  be  only  a  matter  of  time  before 
the  United  States  will  be  compelled  to  assume  control  of  all  of  this 
waterway  within  its  borders. 

10.  Ifc  is  important  that  any  new  lock  and  dam  constructed  at 
Troy  shall  be  adequate  to  meet  all  the  requirements  of  commerce. 
As  soon  as  opened  it  will  be  the  outlet  for  the  two  barge  canals.  It 
is  not  known  with  certainty  what  are  the  plans  of  the  State  of  New 
York  for  this  work.  In  so  far  as  published,  the  only  work  contem- 
plated is  the  construction  of  one  lock  of  the  standard  barge  canal 
lock  size  having  a  chamber  of  310  by  45  feet  and  a  depth  over  the 
miter  sills  of  12  feet,  with  repairs  to  the  existing  dam.  I  am  informed 
that  the  existing  appropriation  for  the  barge  canal  will  not  cover 
the  cost  of  even  this  work.  The  lock  proposed  by  the  United  States 
has  a  chamber  length  of  465  feet  divided  by  intermediate  gates,  a 
width  of  45  feet,  and  a  depth  over  miter  sills  of  14  feet.  The  increased 
length  is  given  to  provide  the  better  for  the  traffic  from  the  two 
canals,  and  the  greater  depth  because  boats  drawing  14  feet  will 
be  able  to  reach  the  lock,  and  the  increase  of  cost  due  to  the  greater 
depth  over  the  sills  is  but  slight.  Should  the  United  States  deem 
it  best  to  abandon  this  work  to  the  State  of  New  York  it  should 
be  with  the  proviso  that  the  plans  for  the  proposed  lock  and  dam 
shall  be  satisfactory  to  the  Secretary  of  War. 

11.  In  a  recent  interview  with  Gov.  Dix,  he  stated  that  he  deems 
it  of  importance  that  New  York  should  retain  contiol  of  all  water- 
power  developments  from  the  waterways  within  her  boundaries, 
and  that  it  is  his  belief  that  should  the  dam  at  Troy  be  built  by 
the  United  States,  the  State  of  New  York  could  not  claim  or  use 
the  power  developed.  The  project  for  the  dam  contemplates  the 
immediate  development  and  use  of  2  000  horsepower,  with  a  possi- 
bility by  further  expenditure  in  the  tailrace  of  developing  at  least 
2.000  horsepower  more.  It  is  estimated  that  the  value  at  Troy  of 
such  power  is  between  $5  and  $10  per  horsepower  per  annum.  Assum- 
ing $8  per  horsepower  per  annum  the  immediate  rental  value  would 
be  $16  000  per  year,  with  a  possible  ultimate  value  of  $32,000 per 
year. 


HUDSOlSr  RIVEB,  NEW  YORK. 


21 


12.  Wliile  this  represents  a  resource  which  can  not  be  ignored, 
the  main  object  of  the  dam  is  the  improvement  of  navigation.  Should 
it  be  deemed  advisable  to  do  so,  in  the  present  condition  of  dispute 
as  to  the  legal  ownersliip  of  power  developed  in  interior  waterways, 
an  arrangement  might  be  entered  into  with  the  State  of  Xew  York 
similar  to  that  contemplated  in  the  act  of  Congress  entitled  ''An 
act  to  regulate  the  construction  of  dams  across  navigable  waters/' 
approved  June  21,  1906.  and  its  amendment  as  contained  in  the  act 
approved  June  23,  1910,  by  which  the  use  of  the  power  developed 
might  be  left  to  New  York. 

13.  I  would  therefore  report  as  follows: 

(1)  In  my  judgment  the  action  of  the  canal  board,  dated  April  28, 
1911.  is  illegal  and  void. 

(2)  Compliance  with  the  wishes  of  the  governor  of  the  State  of 
New  York,  as  expressed  in  the  resolution  of  the  canal  board,  can  be 
had  only  by  action  of  Congress. 

(3)  Congress  having  adopted  a  project  of  improvement  from  deep 
water  of  the  Hudson  to  Waterford,  subject  to  a  condition  which  has 
been  fulfilled  by  the  State  of  New  York,  and  the  War  Department 
having  already  taken  action  under  that  project,  it  should  be  carried 
out. 

(4)  Should  the  above  be  disapproved  by  superior  authority,  it  is 
recommended  either  (a)  that  Congress  be  asked  to  revoke  its  former 
action  and  to  permit  the  State  of  New  York  to  continue  the  work  of 
improvement  of  the  Hudson  between  a  point  immediately  below  the 
present  State  dam  and  Waterford  with  tiie  proviso  that  the  works  to 
be  carried  on  by  the  State  shall  be  satisfactory  to  the  Secretary  of 
War  as  to  their  design  and  adequacy  to  meet  the  demands  of  com- 
merce or  (b)  that  Congress  be  asked  to  authorize  the  Secretary  of 
War  to  enter  into  an  arrangement  ^^^th  the  State  of  New  York  for 
the  construction  of  the  lock  and  dam  and  use  of  power  developed 
similar  to  that  authorized  with  individuals  and  corporations  in  the 
act  approved  June  21,  1906,  as  amended  bv  the  act  approved  June 
23,  1910. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  M.  Black, 
Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers. 


War  Department, 
United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  Yorl  City,  May  10,  1911. 

The  Chief  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

General:  At  a  conference  held  in  Albany  on  May  9,  1911,  with 
the  governor,  the  attorney  general,  and  the  State  engineer  of  the 
State  of  New  York  I  was  requested  to  submit  to  you  for  answer  by 
the  department  the  following  questions: 

Under  the  act  approved  June  25,  1910,  appropriating  $1,350,000  for  improving  the 
Hudson  River,  is  the  portion  of  such  appropriation  Avhich,  by  the  terms  of  the  act,  is 
to  be  expended  otherwise  than  in  constructing  the  dam  and  lock  mentioned  in  the 
engineer's  report  available,  and  may  the  same  be  expended  without  the  destruction 
on  the  part  of  the  State  of  New  York  of  the  present  dam? 


22 


HUDSON  EIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


In  other  words,  is  it  necessary  for  the  State  of  New  York  to  destroy  the  State  dam  at 
Troy  before  the  National  Government  can  expend  any  portion  of  the  appropriation 
referred  to? 

Or,  is  that  appropriation,  or  any  portion  of  it,  available  (if  so,  what  portion)  without 
the  extinction  of  the  power  rights  now  existing  at  said  dam? 

Should  the  United  States  Government  build  the  dam,  as  contemplated  by  the  act 
referred  to,  and  thereby  create  water  power,  is  it  claimed  that  such  water  power  belongs 
to  the  United  States  Government? 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  M.  Black, 
Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers. 

[First  indorsement.] 

War  Department, 
Office  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers, 

Washington,  May  17,  1911. 

1.  Respectfully  submitted  to  the  Secretary  of  War. 

2.  This  matter  is  fully  covered  by  my  indorsement  of  the  6th 
instant,  copy  herewith,  in  which  I  recommended  that  the  authorities 
of  the  State  of  New  York  be  informed  of  the  views  of  the  department 
and  asked  further  information  as  to  the  intentions  and  plans  of  the 
State. 

3.  In  answer  to  the  questions  of  the  governor,  set  forth  within  by 
Col.  Black,  it  is  believed  that  it  would  be  appropriate  to  say  that — 

{a)  Under  the  terms  of  the  act  of  June  25,  1910,  the  abandonment 
and  removal  of  the  State  dam  at  Troy  and  the  extinguishment  of  all 
existing  water  rights  or  privileges  are  specifically  required.  The 
abandonment  and  removal  of  the  said  structures  are  not  made,  in  so 
many  words,  a  condition  precedent  to  the  expenditure  of  the  funds 
appropriated  and  pledged  for  the  improvement  of  the  river;  but  they 
are  among  the  express  conditions  upon  which  Congress  adopted  the 
project  and  assumed  the  obligation  to  execute  the  improvement. 
Therefore  if  the  action  of  the  State  authorities  with  reference  to  these 
two  things  should  be  such  as  to  preclude  their  accomplishment  the 
War  Department  would  be  bound  to  hold  that  as  the  requirements  of 
Congress  could  not  be  fulfilled  the  department  would  not  be  war- 
ranted in  undertaking  any  portion  of  the  work  embraced  in  the  project 
nor  in  expending  any  portion  of  the  funds  appropriated  thereon. 

(&)  Under  the  termS  of  the  act  the  expenditure  of  the  funds  appro- 
priated and  pledged  is  expressly  conditioned  upon  the  extinguishment 
of  the  existing  water  rights  or  privileges. 

(c)  It  has  been  uniformly  held  by  the  department  that  Congress 
has  the  right  to  regulate,  control,  and  dispose  of  water  power  created 
by  works  constructed  for  the  improvement  of  navigation,  and  it  is 
believed  that  any  water  power  created  by  the  dam  proposed  to  be 
built  at  the  expense  of  the  United  States  at  Troy  will,  belong  to  the 
United  States  and  that  it  can  be  disposed  of  for  the  public  benefit. 

W.  H.  BlXBY, 

Gliief  of  Engineers  J  United  States  Army, 


HUDSOX  EIVEE,  XEW  YORK. 


23 


[Third  indorsement.] 

War  Department, 
Office  of  the  Judge  Advocate  General, 

Washington,  D.  C,  May  22,  1911. 

Respectfully  returned  to  the  Secretary  of  War. 

The  river  and  harbor  act  of  June  25,  1910  (Public,  No.  264),  made 
an  appropriation  of  $1,350,000  for  improving  the  Hudson  River  in 
accordance  with  the  report  submitted  in  House  Document  719  (61st 
Cong.,  2d  sess.)  and  provided:  ''The  expenditure  of  the  amounts 
herein  and  hereafter  appropriated  for  said  improvement  shall  be 
subject  to  the  conditions  set  forth-  in  said  document." 

The  plan  submitted  in  said  report  contemplated  the  construction 
of  a  new  lock  and  dam  in  the  vicinity  of  Troy,  N.  Y.,  about  1,400  feet 
north  of  the  State  lock  and  dam,  the  removal  of  said  State  lock  and 
dam,  and  the  continuation  of  a  channel  from  deep  water  in  the  lower 
river  through  said  State  lock  and  dam  to  Waterford,  it  being  stated 
in  said  report  that  ''it  is  advisable  for  the  General  Government  to 
undertake  the  improvement  of  the  Hudson  River  from  deep  water 
up  to  Waterford,  provided  all  existing  power  rights  or  privileges 
affected  bv  the  improvement  are  extinguished  bv  the  State  of  New 
York,"  etc. 

It  appears  that  after  the  passage  of  the  act.  when  it  became  appa- 
rent that  the  prosecution  of  the  work  would  be  facilitated  by  the 
immediate  abandonment  of  the  State  lock  and  dam,  the  matter  was 
brought  to  the  attention  of  the  governor  of  New  York  by  War  Depart- 
ment indorsement  of  August  5,  1910,  on  E.  D.  letter  of  August  4, 
1910;  that  in  response  to  this  communication  the  State  canal  board, 
at  a  meeting  held  on  November  22,  1910,  passed  a  resolution  formally 
abandoning  the  lock  and  dam  and  authorizing  their  destruction, 
this  abandonment  being  understood  to  carry  with  it  the  extinguish- 
ment of  the  water  rights;  and  that  subsequent  to  the  passage  of  the 
resolution  the  State  board  of  public  works  transmitted  to  the  Secre- 
tary of  War  a  copy  thereof  and  advised  him  that  possession  might 
be  taken  of  the  structures  at  any  time,  and  that  the  water  rights  at 
either  end  of  the  dam  had  been  canceled.  Thereupon  the  Engineer 
Department  proceeded  with  the  necessary  preliminary  operations, 
involying  the  expenditure  of  considerable  sums  of  money,  and  entered 
into  a  contract  for  dredging  and  rock  excavation  covering  nearly 
S300,000  worth  of  work,  to  be  commenced  during  the  present  month. 

Subsequent  to  this  action,  the  governor  of  New  York  presented  a 
resolution  of  the  State  canal  board,  approved  April  28,  1911,  rescind- 
ing the  aforesaid  resolution  of  November  22,  1910,  abandoning  the 
lock  and  dam,  indicating  an  intention  to  retain  the  control  of  these 
structures,  and  requesting  the  War  Department  to  amend  the 
adopted  project  for  the  improvement  of  the  river. 

As  a  result  of  this  attitude  on  the  part  of  the  State  authorities,  a 
conference  was  held  in  Albany,  on  May  9,  1911,  vAih  the  governor, 
the  attorney  general,  and  the  State  engineer  of  the  State  of  New 
YoTk,  at  which  Col.  W.  M.  Black,  local  engineer  officer,  was  requested 
to  submit  for  the  views  of  the  War  Department  the  questions 
which  may  be  stated  briefly  as  follows: 

(1)  Whether  the  portion  of,  the  appropriation  made  by  the  act  of 
June  25,  1910,  which  is  to  be  expended  otherwise  than  in  the  con- 


24 


HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


struction  of  the  proposed  lock  and  dam,  may  be  expended  without 
the  destruction,  on  tlie  part  of  the  State  of  New  York,  of  the  present 
dam,  or  without  the  consent  of  the  State  to  such  destruction. 


expenditure  without  the  extension  of  the  power  rights  now  existing 
at  said  dam  and  referred  to  in  said  report. 

(3)  Whether,  if  the  United  States  should  build  the  proposed  dam, 
as  authorized  by  the  act  of  Congress,  and  thereby  create  water  power, 
it  is  claimed  that  such  water  power  belongs  to  the  United  States 
Government. 

As  to  the  first  question,  the  Chief  of  Engineers  suggests  the  follow- 
ing answer: 

(a)  Under  the  terms  of  the  act  of  June  25,  ]910,  the  abandonment  and  removal  of 
the  State  dam  at  Troy  and  the  extinguishment  of  all  existing  water  rights  or  privileges 
are  specifically  required.  The  abandonment  and  removal  of  the  said  structures  are 
not  made,  in  so  many  words,  a  condition  precedent  to  the  expenditure  of  the  funds 
appropriated  and  pledged  for  the  improvement  of  the  river,  but  they  are  among  the 
express  conditions  upon  which  Congress  adopted  the  project  and  assumed  the  obliga- 
tion to  execute  the  improvement.  Therefore,  if  the  action  of  the  State  authorities, 
with  reference  to  these  two  things,  should  be  such  as  to  preclude  their  accomplishment, 
the  War  Department  would  be  bound  to  hold  that  as  the  requirements  of  Congress 
could  not  be  fulfilled,  the  department  would  not  be  warranted  in  undertaking  any 
portion  of  the  work  embraced  in  the  project,  nor  in  expending  any  portion  of  the 
funds  appropriated  thereon. 

I  concur  in  this  view  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  that  the  project  is 
to  be  treated  as  an  entirety,  and  that  unless  the  consent  of  the  State 
is  given  to  the  abandonment  and  removal  of  the  existing  lock  and  dam 
the  War  Department  would  not  be  authorized  to  proceed  with  any 
part  of  the  work  of  improvement  as  authorized  by  said  act.  It  may 
further  be  questioned  whether,  the  State  having  given  its  consent  to 
the  abandonment  and  destruction  of  the  lock  and  dam,  and  having 
provided,  it  is  understood,  for  the  extinguishm.ent  of  the  water  rights 
connected  therewith,  and  the  United  States  having  proceeded,  upon 
the  faith  of  such  action  on  the  part  of  the  State  authorities,  with 
the  work  of  improvement,  it  was  competent  for  the  State  authorities 
to  rescind  such  action.  This  question  should  be  reserved  for  further 
consideration. 

As  to  the  second  question,  the  Chief  of  Engineers  suggests  the  fol- 
lowing answer: 

(6)  Under  the  terms  of  the  act  the  expenditure  of  the  funds  appropriated  and  pledged 
is  expressly  conditioned  upon  the  extinguishment  of  the  existing  water  rights  or 
privileges. 

I  concur  in  this  view  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  that  the  whole  mat- 
ter is  conditioned  upon  the  extinguishment  of  the  existing  water 
rights  or  privileges  connected  with  the  State  lock  and  dam  referred 
to  in  said  report,  and  that  no  portion  of  the  funds  appropriated  can 
be  expended  without  the  extinction  of  the  power  rights  now  existing 
at  said  dam. 

As  to  the  third  question,  the  Chief  of  Engineers  suggests  the  follow- 
ing answer: 

» 

(c)  It  has  been  uniformly  held  by  the  departnipnt  that  Congress  has  the  right  to 
regulate,  control,  and  dispose  of  water  power  created  by  works  constructed  for  the 
improvement  of  navigation,  and  it  is  believed  that  any  water  power  created  by  the 
dam  proposed  to  be  built  at  the  expense  of  the  United  States  at  Troy  will  belong  to 
the  United  States,  and  that  it  can  be  disposed  of  for  the  public  benefit. 


(2)  Whether  any  portion 


available  for 


HUDSON"  EIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


25 


I  concur  in  this  view  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  that  it  was  the  inten- 
tion of  Congress  in  providing  for  said  improvement  that  any  water 
power  created  by  the  dam  proposed  to  be  built  at  the  expense  of 
the  United  States  should  be  subject  to  the  control  and  disposal  of  the 
United  States. 

E.  H.  Crowder, 
Judge  Advocate  General. 


War  Department, 
United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  York  City,  May  10,  1911. 

The  Chief  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

General:  In  compliance  with  the  telephonic  request  of  the  gov- 
ernor of  the  State  of  New  York,  and  with  orders  from  your  office,  I 
had  a  conference  yesterday.  May  9,  at  Albany,  with  the  governor, 
the  attorney  general,  and  the  State  engineer  of  the  State  of  New 
York. 

2.  In  this  conference,  at  the  request  of  the  governor,  I  laid  before  him 
the  status  of  the  work  on  the  Hudson  River  under  the  appropriation 
of  the  act  of  June  25,  1910,  as  affected  by  the  action  of  the  canal 
board  of  November  22,  1910,  and  the  further  action  of  that  board  of 
April  28,  1911,  in  accordance  with  the  understanding  of  that  status 
as  obtained  after  conference  in  your  office  on  May  5.  The  governor 
then  informed  me  as  to  the  standpoint  of  himself  and  of  the  State 
authorities. 

3.  It  would  appear  that  the  governor  desires  simply  to  retain  in  the 
State  of  New  York  the  control  of  any  water  power  which  will  be  de- 
veloped by  the  dams  on  the  Hudson,  and  had  been  advised  that  the 
action  of  the  canal  board  of  November  22,  1910,  might  be  construed 
as  a  relinquishment  to  the  United  States  of  the  control  of  all  water 
power  created  by  a  dam  at  Troy.  It  would  ap})ear,  further,  that  the 
governor  thinks  that  the  dam  at  Troy  and  the  pool  above  should  be 
under  control  of  the  State  of  New  York  as  the  terminus  on  the  Hud- 
son of  the  Erie  and  Champlain  Canals.  The  attorney  general  appar- 
ently had  been  under  the  impression  that  the  United  States  entered 
into  the  project  for  the  construction  of  the  dam  at  Troy  with  the 
fundamental  idea  of  the  dam  being  a  source  of  revenue  from  the 
power  developed. 

4.  I  informed  the  governor  that  the  action  of  the  United  States  was 
taken  purely  in  the  interests  of  navigation;  that,  in  accordance  with 
the  conservation  policy  recently  adopted,  it  was  deemed  important 
that  provision  should  be  made  for  the  utilization  of  any  power  that 
might  be  developed;  that  the  project  for  the  dam  contemplated 
only  such  arrangements  of  the  dam  as  would  permit  the  utilization  of 
such  power  without  any  material  increase  of  cost  to  the  dam;  and 
that  in  the  project,  as  far  as  prepared,  provision  was  simply  made  for 
the  insertion  of  sluiceways  for  head  gates  in  a  portion  of  the  crest  of 
the  dam  and  the  preparation  of  a  portion  of  the  foundation  on  which 
a  power  house  could  be  built,  with  a  partial  provision  for  a  tailrace. 
I  further  informed  him  that  it  was  my  understanding  that  the  depart- 
ment did  not  consider  that  the  question  as  to  who  owned  the  power, 
when  developed,  was  fully  settled,  but  that  probably  it  would  be 


26 


HUDSON"  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


deemed  that  if  the  United  States  was  the  riparian  owner  on  both  banks, 
should  the  dam  be  constructed,  it  would  own  the  power. 

5.  The  fact  was  further  pointed  out  that  the  extension  of  the 
project  to  Waterford  was  entered  into  by  Congress  after  due  considera- 
tion by  Congress  of  the  fact  that  works  for  the  improvement  of  navi- 
gation on  the  Hudson  River  at  and  above  the  State  dam  at  Troy  had, 
up  to  that  time,  been  under  the  control  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
as  was  distinctly  pointed  out  in  the  letter  of  Brig.  Gen.  Mackenzie, 
Cliief  of  Engineers,  dated  January  18,  1907,  transmitting  the  reports 
of  preliminary  examination  of  the  Hudson  to  Congress,  printed  in 
House  Document  No.  539,  Fifty-ninth  Congress,  second  session,  and 
again  in  the  letter  of  Brig.  Gen.  W.  L.  Marshall,  Cliief  of  Engineers, 
dated  February  24,  1910,  transmitting  further  reports  on  the  pre- 
liminary examinations  and  survey  of  the  Hudson,  printed  in  House 
Document  No.  719,  Sixty-first  Congress,  second  session;  and  that  the 
adoption  of  the  project  by  Congress  and  the  subsequent  legislation 
making  the  appropriation  had  apparently  been  done  at  the  request 
of  the  authorities  of  the  State  of  New  York;  that  in  the  legislation 
the  availability  of  the  appropriation  was  made  with  the  proviso  that 
all  existing  water-power  rights  or  privileges  affected  by  the  improve- 
ment are  extinguished  by  the  State  of  New  York;  that  the  State  of 
New  York  had  taken  the  necessary  preliminary  steps  for  such  ex- 
tinguishment in  the  action  of  the  canal  board,  or  November  22,  1910; 
and  the  United  States  then  had  entered  upon  the  execution  of  its 
portion  of  this  implied  contract.  I  further  stated  to  them  that,  in 
my  judgment,  the  subsequent  action  of  the  canal  board  of  April  28, 
1911,  was  of  doubtful  legality  and  that,  if  legal,  it  would  render 
imavailable  the  existing  appropriations  for  the  improvement  of  the 
Hudson  at  all  points,  unless  further  action  should  be  taken  by 
Congress. 

6.  The  governor  seemed  anxious  that  the  work  below  the  State 
dam  should  be  continued,  but  that  work  at  and  above  the  State  dam 
should  be  deferred  until  Congress  shall  have  had  an  opportunity  to 
pass  upon  a  proposal  of  the  State  of  New  York  to  construct  the  dam 
and  lock  with  its  own  funds  in  such  location  and  upon  such  plans  as 
might  meet  with  the  approval  of  the  Secretary  of  War.  I  informed 
the  governor  that,  in  so  far  as  I  knew,  the  War  Department  would  be 
quite  willing  to  defer  action  on  the  lock  and  dam  until  such  time  as 
Congress  could  act  further,  but  that  it  was  important  that  the  State 
of  New  York  should,  by  its  own  action,  make  available  for  immediate 
use  the  funds  already  appropriated  for  the  work  on  the  remaining 
portion  of  the  river. 

7.  The  attorney  general  of  the  State  held  that  the  use  of  the  water 
by  the  Troy  Hydraulic  Co.  could  not  be  denied  it  nor  the  cancella- 
tion of  the  leases  go  into  effect  until  the  State  dam  had  actually  been 
destroyed.  To  this  I  replied  that  I  believed  that  position  to  be  entirely 
sound;  that  it  was  not  the  intention  to  deprive  the  Troy  Hydraidic 
Co.  of  the  use  of  the  water  until  the  actual  destruction  of  the  existing 
State  dam  became  necessary  in  the  prosecution  of  the  work  of  con- 
struction of  the  new  lock  and  dam.  In  reply  to  a  direct  question 
from  me  as  to  what  steps  ifc  would  be  necessary  for  the  State  of  New 
York  to  take  to  cancel  these  leases  were  the  State  of  New  York  about 
to  proceed  with  the  destruction  of  the  old  State  dam,  he  informed 
me  that  it  would  be  necessarv  to  serve  notice  on  the  holders  of  the 


HUDSON  EIVEK,  NEW  YOKK. 


27 


leases  that  for  the  improvement  of  navi^j^ation  that  dam  would  have 
to  be  destro3'ed  and  that  its  use  of  the  power  would  have  to  cease  on 
or  about  a  certain  fixed  date.  This,  in  effect,  is  exactly  the  action 
that  had  been  taken  on  November  22,  1910. 

8.  The  governor  then  requested  me  to  submit  to  you  for  reply  by 
the  War  Department  the  questions  sent  with  my  letter  of  to-day, 
and  decided  to  defer  further  action  in  the  matter  until  a  reply  shall 
have  been  received  from  the  War  Department  to  his  letter  of  April  28, 
1911. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  M.  Black, 
Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers. 


May  9,  1911. 

Hon.  John  A.  Dix, 

Governor  of  New  YorTc,  Albany,  N.  Y. 
Sir:  Referring  to  your  letter  of  April  28,  under  cover  of  which  you 
transmit  a  copy  of  a  resolution  adopted  by  the  canal  board  of  the 
State  of  New  York  at  its  meeting  held  on  the  26th  day  of  April,  1911, 
relative  to  the  construction  of  a  dam  across  the  Hudson  River  in 
the  vicinity  of  Troy,  I  beg  to  call  to  your  attention  a  report  made 
to  me  upon  the  subject  by  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  as  follows: 

War  Department, 
Office  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers, 

Washington,  May  6,  1911. 

1.  Respectfully  returned  to  the  Secretary  of  War. 

2.  In  the  river  and  harbor  act  of  June  25,  1910,  Congress  made  provision  for  con- 
tinuing the  improvement  of  Hudson  River  in  accordance  with  the  report  set  forth 
in  House  Document  No.  719,  Sixty-first  Congress,  second  session.  The  project  thus 
adopted  provides  for  securing  a  channel  of  specified  width  and  depth  from  deep 
water  in  the  lower  river  up  to  Waterford,  and  includes  the  following  things: 

(a)  Dredging  and  rock  excavation  throughout  the  extent  of  the  channel. 

(6)  The  construction  of  a  lock  and  dam  in  the  vicinity  of  Troy,  about  1,400  feet 
north  of  the  existing  State  lock  and  dam,  to  take  the  place  of  the  latter  structures. 

(c)  The  extension  of  the  navigable  channel  of  the  river  through  and  above  the 
existing  State  dam  and  the  connection  of  the  same  with  the  State  canal. 

{d)  The  abandonment  by  the  State  of  New  York  of  its  existing  lock  and  dam  and 
their  removal  by  the  Government  when  the  new  structures  are  completed. 

(e)  The  extinguishment  by  the  State  of  New  York  of  all  existing  water-power  rights 
and  privileges  affected  by  the  improvement. 

(/)  The  ultimate  utilization  by  the  Government  of  the  water  power  not  required  by 
navigation  that  may  be  created  by  the  new  constructions. 

3.  It  is  understood  that  when  the  project  was  under  consideration  by  Congress,  the 
authorities  of  the  State  of  New  York  were  decidedly  favorable  to  its  adoption,  includ- 
ing the  provisions  relating  to  the  abandonment  of  the  State  lock  and  dam  and  the 
extinguishment  of  all  existing  water  rights  or  privileges,  and  that  the  action  of  Con- 
gress was  largely  influenced  by  the  earnest  and  urgent  advocation  of  their  Representa- 
tives in  that  body.  Accordingly  after  the  passage  of  the  act,  when  it  became  apparent 
that  the  prosecution  of  the  work  would  be  facilitated  by  the  immediate  abandonment 
of  the  structures,  the  matter  was  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  governor  of  New 
York  by  War  Department  indorsement  of  August  5,  1910,  on  E.  D.  letter  of  August 
4,  1910,  copy  herewith.  In  response  to  this  communication  the  State  canal  board,  at 
a  meeting  held  November  22,  1910,  passed  a  resolution  formally  al)andoning  the  lock 
and  darn  and  authorizing  their  destruction.  This  abandonment  carried  with  it  the 
extinguishment  of  the  water  rights,  it  is  understood,  and  subseqeunt  to  the  passage 
of  the  resolution  the  State  board  of  public  works  transmitted  to  the  Secretary  of  War 
a  copy  thereof  and  advised  him  that  possession  might  be  taken  of  the  structures  at 
any  time;  also  that  the  water  rights  at  either  end  of  the  dam  had  been  canceled. 


28 


HUDSON  KIVER,  NEW  YOEK. 


4.  Under  the  terms  of. the  act  the  expenditure  of  the  funds  was  conditioned  upon 
the  extinguishment  of  these  ri.G^hts,  and  this  restriction  having  been  removed  by  the 
aforesaid  action  of  the  State,  tbe  department  proceeded  with  the  necessary  prelimi- 
nary operations,  involving  the  expenditure  of  considerable  sums  of  money,  and  entered 
into  a  contract  for  dredging  and  rock  excavation  covering  nearly  1300,000  of  work  to 
be  commenced  during  the  present  month. 

5.  The  governor  of  New  York  now  presents  a  resolution  of  the  State  canal  board, 
approved  April  28,  1911,  rescinding  the  aforesaid  resolution  of  November  22,  1910, 
abandoning  the  lock  and  dam,  indicating  an  intention  to  retain  the  control  of  these 
structures  and  requesting  the  War  Department  to  amend  the  adopted  project  for  the 
improvement  of  the  river.  This  change  in  the  attitude  of  the  State  authorities  is 
not  understood,  and  is  likely  to  embarrass  the  operations  of  the  department,  if  not  to 
stop  them  altogether  until  further  action  has  been  taken  by  Congress.  \Vhile  the 
act  of  Congress  empowers  the  Chief  of  Engineers  and  the  Secretary  of  War  to  modify 
the  general  plan  of  improvement  in  respect  to  the  location  of  the  new  lock  and  dam, 
and  in  respect  to  matters  of  detail,  it  does  not  authorize  such  modifications  as  would 
be  necessitated  by  this  action  of  the  State  authorities.  The  abandonment  and 
removal  of  the  existing  State  structures  and  the  extinguishment  of  all  existing  water 
rights  are  specifically  required  by  the  act,  are  an  integral  and  important  part  of  the 
adopted  plan  of  improvement,  and  are  absolutely  essential  to  the  accomplishment  of 
the  intent  of  Congress  in  providing  for  the  improvement.  To  make  such  a  change 
in  the  plan  of  improvement  will,  it  is  believed,  require  the  sanction  of  Congress,  and 
the  department  would  not  be  warranted  in  prosecuting  the  work  or  making  further 
expenditures  until  that  sanction  has  been  obtained.  Moreover,  if,  as  is  assumed,  the 
rescinding  of  the  resolution  of  abandonment  revives  and  continues  in  force  the  appur- 
tenant water  rights  and  privileges,  congressional  action  will  be  necessary  to  justify 
the  expenditures  already  made  by  the  department  in  pursuance  of  the  previous 
action  of  the  State  authorities.  It  would  also  seem  appropriate  that  the  action  neces- 
sary to  secure  the  assent  of  Congress  should  be  inaugurated  by  the  State  through  its 
Representatives. 

6.  Under  existing  law  it  will  not  be  permissible  for  the  State  of  New  York  to  build 
a  dam  across  the  Hudson  River  unless  its  construction  has  been  authorized  by  Con- 
gress, and  the  plans  therefor  have  received  the  approval  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers 
and  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  under  present  conditions  the  War  Department  must 
require  that  any  dam  built  by  the  State  shall  conform  to  the  plans  adopted  by  Con- 
gress for  the  improvement  of  the  river. 

7.  I  recommend,  therefore,  that  the  views  of  the  department  be  brought  to  the  early 
attention  of  the  authorities  of  the  State  of  New  York  with  request  for  further  informa- 
tion as  to  the  intentions  and  plans  of  the  State. 

8.  If  the  recent  action  of  the  canal  board  is  adhered  to,  I  further  recommend  that 
the  matter  be  referred  to  the  Attorney  General  for  opinion  as  to  the  legal  effect  of 
such  action  upon  the  availnbility  for  expenditure  of  the  funds  already  appropriated 
by  Congress  for  the  improvement  of  the  river,  and  particularly  upon  the  contracts 
now  in  force. 

W.  H.  BlXBY, 

Chief  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army. 

In  view  of  the  attitude  presented  by  Gen.  Bixby,  I  request  that 
you  will  give  me  further  information  as  to  the  intentions  and  plans 
of  the  State. 

Respectfully,  J.  M.  Dickinson, 

Secretary  of  War, 


May  11,  1911. 

Hon.  John  A.  Dix, 

Governor  of  State  of  New  Yorlc,  Albany,  N.  Y. 

Governor:  In  the  conference  held  at  your  office  on  Tuesday  last 
it  became  apparent  to  me  that  the  policy  of  the  United  States  regard- 
ing power  developed  by  dams  made  for  the  improvement  of  naviga- 
tion was  not  understood  by  your  advisers. 

I  send  you  a  copy  of  Circular  No.  12,  War  Department,  Office  of 
the  Chief  of  Engineers,  April  5,  1911,  and  would  invite  your  atten- 


HUDSOIT  KIVEK,  NEW  YORK. 


29 


tion  to  the  marked  paragraph  on  page  7.  Taking  this  in  connection 
with  the  act  of  June  23,  1910,  entitled  ''An  act  to  amend  an  act 
entitled  'An  act  to  regulate  the  construction  of  dams  across  navigable 
waters/  approved  June  21,  1906,"  you  \^ill  see  that  it  is  the  desire 
of  the  United  States  to  cooperate  with  State,  corporate,  and  private 
interests  in  the  development  of  power  when  the  improvements  neces- 
sary for  navigation  include  the  canalization  of  the  stream  by  the 
erection  of  dams.  * 

The  attorney  general  of  the  State  misunderstood  this  latter  act 
regarding  the  control  of  the  power.  The  United  States  in  the  act 
reserves  for  itself  control  only  of  the  power  necessary  for  the  operation 
of  the  lock  and  dam;  as,  for  example,  at  the  Troy  Dam  the  amount 
of  power  which  it  would  thus  require  for  its  own  purposes  is  from 
250  to  300  horsepower.  I  inclose  a  copy  of  this  act,  and  would 
earnestly  request  that  you  read  personally  its  provisions  as  well  as- 
the  marked  paragraph  of 'the  circular  sent. 

Very  respectfully,  W.  M.  Black, 

Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers. 


United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  Yorlc,  N.  Y.,  May  11,  1911. 

Copy  respectfully  furnished  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  United  States 
Army,  for  his  information. 

W.  M.  Black, 
Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army. 


War  Department, 
United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  York  City,  May  19,  1911. 
The  Chief  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

General:  I  have  the  honor  to  inclose  herewith  a  copy  of  a  letter 
and  inclosure  received  to-day  from  the  attorney  general  of  the  State 
of  New  York. 

2.  In  accordance  with  the  statements  of  the  last  paragraph  of  his 
letter,  I  telegraphed  you  this  morning  for  authority  to  visit  Wash- 
ington during  the  early  part  of  next  week  for  the  purpose  of  having 
the  conference  requested.  At  your  suggestion  I  have  communicated 
with  the  Hon.  Henr}^  L.  Stimson,  who  is  about  to  assume  the  duties 
of  Secretar}'  of  War,  and  was  informed  that  it  would  be  impossible 
for  him  to  do  anything  in  'this  matter  during  the  coming  week.  In 
view  of  the  fact  that  I  shall  be  compelled  to  go  to  Habana  about  May 
28  and  remain  there  for  some  period,  it  would  seem  to  be  impossible 
for  me  to  be  present  at  an}^  conference  such  as  Mr.  Carmody  suggests. 
I  also  inclose  a  cop}^  of  my  letter  to  Mr.  Carmody  .to-da}^  in  answer 
to  his  of  Mav  17. 

Very  respectfully,  yo\xv  obedient  servant, 

W.  M.  Black, 
Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers. 


30 


HUDSON"  KIVEE,  NEW  YORK. 


Albany,  N.  Y.,  May  17,  191L 

Col.  W.  M.  Black, 

United  States  Engineer  Office,  New  York  City. 

Dear  Col.  Black:  Your  letter  of  the  11th  instant,  with  inclosures, 
to  Gov.  Dix  has  been  forwarded  me  for  consideration. 

I  regret  exceedingly  that  I  did  not  make  myself  plain  to  you  with 
regard  to  the  attitude  which  I  took  respecting  the  Troy  dam.  I 
inclose  you  copy  of  opinion  which  I  rendered  recently  on  the  subject 
and  which,  I  think,  will  remove  from  your  mind  all  doubt  on  the 
subject. 

My  impression  as  to  the  attitude  of  the  United  States  Government 
in  seeking  to  construct  the  Troy  dam  has  been  derived  from  your 
report  to  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  in  which,  it  seems  to  me,  the  claim 
is  plainly  made  that  the  Government  should  have  control  of  the  entire 
power  developed  at  the  dam.  If  the  Government  has  no  such  pur- 
pose, then  I  think  there  is  nothing  about  'which  there  can  be  any 
material  difference. 

Personally  and  officially,  I  am  exceedingly  anxious  to  help  facilitate 
the  work  of  improving  the  Hudson  on  the  part  of  the  United  States 
Government,  and  I  am  sure  this  is  the  attitude  of  Gov.  Dix.  I  have 
regarded  it  as  my  duty  to  advise  the  revision  of  the  action  of  the 
canal  board  in  December  last,  as  I  believe  that  action  was  illegal.  I 
do  not  think  there  is  any  difference  of  opinion  among  lawyers  on  this 
question.  Did  the  United  States  Government  come  in  on  that  action 
and  undertake  later  to  destroy  the  dam,  that  act  would,  in  my  opin- 
ion, leave  either  the  Government  or  the  State  liable  in  damages  to  the 
lessees.  That  power  can  only  be  legally  destroyed  by  the  State  under 
the  leases.  Being  satisfied  of  this,  I  advised  restoring  the  parties  to 
the  leases  to  their  status  as  before  the  action  was  taken. 

In  advising  this  action  I  was  not  at  all  controlled  by  the  idea  that 
the  lessees  should  have  a  continued  use  of  the  power.  Rather  do  I 
believe  that,  if  a  new  dam  is  built  at  this  point,  it  should  not  be  done 
until  the  leases  are  voluntarily  canceled,  so  that  the  State  may  have 
the  benefit  of  the  commercial  value  of  the  power  developed.  If  the 
dam  is  built  elsewhere,  the  State  has  this  right  as  a  matter  of  course. 

It  is  exceedingly  desirable  that  the  Government  be  allowed  to 
expend  the  appropriation  in  the  Hudson  River  in  improving  naviga- 
tion. It  has  the  constitutional  right  to  do  this  and  I  am  sure  there 
will  be  no  objection  thrown  in  the  way. 

Would  it  not  be  practicable  for  yourself  and  the  State  engineer  to 
decide  upon  the  location  of  the  dam,  and  then  allow  it  to  be  constructed 
by  the  State — the  United  States  Government  expending  this  appro- 
priation, as  the  Constitution  permits,  and  I  think  directs,  it  to  be 
done,  namely,  in  improving  the  navigation  of  the  river  and  canal  at 
this  point  ? 

At  the  request  of  Gov.  Dix,  Mr.  Bensel  and  myself  will  accom- 
pany you,  at  your  convenience,  to  Washington,  for  the  purpose  of 
adjusting  any  differences  or  misunderstandiug  that  my  exist  in  regard 
to  the  action  taken  by  the  State  canal  board  and  the  action  of  the 
Federal  Government,  in  regard  to  the  navigation  of  the  Hudson 
River  and  the  construction  of  the  State  dam  at  Troy. 
Yours,  very  respectfully, 

Thomas  Carmody, 

Attorney  General. 


HUDSoisr  ei\t:e,  itew  yokk. 


31 


SURPLUS  WATERS  IN  NAVIGABLE  RIVERS. — TROY  DAM. 

The  leases  made  by  the  State  of  New  York  for  the  use  of  the  sur- 
plus waters  at  the  east  and  west  ends  of  the  Troy  dam  can  not  be 
rescinded  or  terminated  by  the  State  without  the  consent  of  the 
lessees,  so  long  as  the  dam  where  the  power  is  generated  remains. 

The  action  of  the  canal  board  on  November  22,  1910,  in  under- 
taking to  rescind  these  contracts  by  resolution,  was  therefore  inef- 
fective for  the  purpose  of  terminating  the  leases. 

The  State  of  New  York  is  the  absolute  o\\Tier  of  the  navigable 
rivers  within  its  borders  and  is  the  o^^^ler  of  all  the  waters  therein 
and  of  the  power  developed  from  such  waters.  This  o^^'nersllip  the 
canal  board  has  no  power  to  relinquish. 

Congress  has  power,  by  subdivision  3,  of  section  8,  of  Article  I  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  to  enter  the  navigable  streams  of 
the  State  for  the  purpose  of  regulating  commerce  with  foreign  nations 
and  among  the  several  States.  It  may,  in  utilizing  tliis  power,  con- 
struct dams  and  locks,  but  has  no  rigfit  to  sell  the  power  developed 
thereby,  or  to  use  any  more  than  is  necessary  to  operate  the  works 
thus  created. 

OPINION. 

1.  The  leases  made  by  the  State  of  New  York  for  the  use  of  the 
surplus  water  taken  from  the  east  and  west  ends  of  the  Troy  dam 
are  for  the  term  of  999  years,  and  provide  for  the  payment  of  annual 
rentals.    The  leases  reserve  to  the  State  the  right — 

wholly  to  resume  the  waters  hereby  conveyed  and  the  pri\'ileges  hereby  granted, 
and  to  control  and  limit  the  use  of  said  water  and  pri\'ileges  whenever,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  canal  board  or  of  the  legislature,  the  necessary  supply  of  water  for  use  in  any 
State  canal,  or  the  safety  of  such  canal  or  waters  connected  therewith,  shall  render 
such  resumption,  control,  or  limitation  necessary.  *  *  *  Also  6a\'ing  and  re- 
serving to  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part  (the  State)  the  right,  without  making  any 
compensation  to  the  said  parties  of  the  second  part  or  any  other  person  claiming 
under  them,  wholly  to  abandon  or  destroy  the  work  by  the  construction  of  which 
the  said  surplus  water  has  been  created,  when,  in  the  opinion  of  the  canal  commis- 
sioners, the  occupation  and  use  of  said  work  shall  case  to  be  advantageous  to  the  State. 

These  provisions  contemplate  that  the  leases  shall  continue  as  long 
as  the  power  continues,  and  that  the  use  of  the  power  can  only  be 
terminated  by  the  State  by  the  abandonment  or  destruction  of  the 
dam  itself,  when  such  act  snail  be  deemed  advantageous  to  the  State, 
or  when,  in  the  opinion  of  the  canal  board  or  the  legislature,  it  is 
necessary  to  resume  the  waters  for  the  use  or  safety  of  the  canals  or 
works  connected  therewith. 

The  canal  board,  on  November  22, 1910,  undertook  to  rescind  these 
contracts,  under  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  board  that  the  whole  of  the  surplus  water 
created  by  said  dam  and  lock  is  now  necessary  for  the  use  of  the  canals  of  the  State  and 
the  works  connected  therewith,  authorized  and  directed  by  said  chapter  147  of  the 
laws  of  1903,  and  the  acts  amendatory  thereof  and  supplemental  thereto,  and  that 
the  said  surplus  water  be,  and  the  same  hereby  is,  wholly  resumed;  and  be  it  further 

Resolved,  That  the  said  dam  and  lock,  by  the  construction  of  which  the  said  surplus 
water  has  been  created,  be,  and  the  same  hereby  are,  abandoned,  and  the  destruction 
thereof  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  authorized;  and  be  it  further 

Resolved,  That  the  superintendent  of  public  works  be,  and  he  hereby  is,  directed 
to  serve  a  copy  of  this  resolution  upon  the  said  lessees,  their  successors  or  assigns. 


32 


HUDSON  KIVEE,  NEW  YOKK. 


No  notice  was  given  to  the  lessees  of  the  intention  of  the  State  to 
resume  the  surpkis  waters  of  the  Troy  dam.  This  resolution  was  not 
followed  up  by  any  act  of  the  State  looking  toward  the  destruction 
of  the  dam. 

A  brief  liistory  of  the  events  leading  up  to  this  resolution  is  im- 
portant, that  its  meaning  may  be  understood. 

On  January  10,  1910,  a  report  was  submitted  by  Col.  W.  M.  Black, 
of  the  Corps  of  Engineers  of  the  War  Department  of  the  National 
Government,  through  W.  L.  Marshall,  Chief  of  Engineers,  on  the 
improvement  of  the  lludson  River  in  and  about  Troy  and  Waterford, 
referring  to  the  leases  in  question,  recommending  their  termination 
by  the  State  and  the  construction  of  a  new  dam.  This  report 
appears  at  pages  15  to  26,  inclusive,  in  House  Document  No.  719. 
At  pages  18  and  19  the  report  states: 

It  is  probable  that  when  the  new  dam  is  built  there  will  be  surplus  water  suffi- 
cient to  develop  at  least  about  1,400  horsepower,  which  should  be  utilized.  A  small 
portion  of  this  can  be  used  for  operating  and  lighting  the  lock.  The  remainder  can 
•  be  sold.  It  will  be  noted  that  the  abandonment  of  the  existing  structure  by  the 
State  extinguishes  these  leases  automatically.  The  legal  successors  of  the  canal 
commissioners  are  the  canal  board.  I  am  informed  that  this  body  is  ready  to  abandon 
the  dam  as  soon  as  the  United  States  can  construct  a  new  lock  and  dam.  The  pro- 
posed change  in  location  of  the  dam  would  not  prevent  the  continued  use  of  the 
surplus  water  for  obtaining  power  by  these  establishments  (the  present  lessees),  for 
a  flume  can  be  constructed  to  supply  it.  New  and  mutually  advantageous  arrange- 
ments can  be  made,  if  desired,  with  the  owners  of  these  establishments  for  this  pur- 
pose, since  the  removal  of  the  site  makes  it  possible  to  locate  other  new  estab- 
lishments in  a  position  which  would  make  it  possible  to  utilize  the  power  with  other 
parties;  in  other  words,  the  change  in  location  of  the  dam  would  not  destroy  any 
vested  rights  for  the  use  of  the  power  developed,  nor  would  such  removal  prevent 
the  present  users  from  continuing  its  use.  It  would,  however,  place  the  Govern- 
ment in  a  position  to  obtain  an  adequate  return  for  such  power.  Time  has  not  per- 
mitted an  estimate  of  the  cost  for  the  flume  to  be  made.  If  the  United  States  decides 
to  undertake  the  construction  of  the  lock  and  dam,  the  Secretary  of  War  should  be 
authorized  to  purchase,  by  condemnation  or  otherwise,  under  the  general  statutes 
of  the  State  of  New  York,  the  real  property  necessary  for  the  improvement,  and  also 
to  grant  leases  or  licenses  for  the  use  of  the  surplus  water  for  water  power  created  by 
the  dam,  at  such  a  rate  and  on  such  conditions  and  for  such  periods  of  time  as  may 
seem  to  him  just,  equitable,  and  expedient,  the  said  leases  or  licenses  to  be  limited 
to  the  use  of  the  surplus  water  not  required  for  navigation  and  to  a  period  not  exceed- 
ing 20  years;  for  the  occupation  of  such  land  belonging  to  the  United  States  on  the 
Hudson  River  as  may  be  required  for  power  flumes  or  other  industrial  purposes,  not 
inconsistent  with  the  requirements  of  navigation;  and  to  construct  such  work  or 
works  appertaining  to  the  dam  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  development  and  use  of 
such  water  power. 

It  is  apparently  pursuant  to  this  recommendation  that  the  canal 
board  undertook  to  terminate  the  leases  in  question.  It  will  be  seen 
from  this  report  that  the  immediate  destruction  of  the  power  was  not 
contemplated,  but  that  the  United  States  was  to  be  substituted  for 
the  State  of  New  York  as  lessors,  the  dam  to  be  continued  for  the. 
present,  and  ''new  and  mutually  advantageous  arrangements  made, 
if  desired,  with  the  owners  of  these  easements  (the  lessees)." 

It  is  further  contemplated  by  this  report  that  power  flumes  be  con- 
structed and  such  work  or  works  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  devel- 
opment and  use  of  the  water  power,  and  that  the  United  States,  when 
the  structure  is  completed,  shall  be  the  owner  of  the  water  power  de- 
veloped and  shall  grant  leases  for  the  use  of  the  surplus  water,  at  such 
rate  and  on  such  conditions  and  for  such  period  as  to  it  may  seem 
just,  equitable,  and  expedient. 


HUDSON  EIVEK,  NEW  YORK. 


33 


This  report  was  submitted  to  the  Secretary  of  War  by  the  Chief  of 
Engineers  on  February  24,  1910.  The  Chief  of  Engineers,  in  sub- 
mitting the  report,  uses  this  language: 

The  district  officer  states  that  it  is  probable  that  there  will  be  surplus  water  suffi- 
cient to  develop  at  least  about  1,400  horsepower  at  the  new  dam,  a  small  portion  of 
which  can  be  used  for  operating  and  lighting  the  lock,  and  the  remainder  can  be  sold. 
He  (Col.  Black)  recommends  that,  if  the  improvement  be  adopted,  the  Secretary  of 
War  be  authorized  to  grant  leases  or  licenses  for  the  use  of  the  surplus  water,  for  water 
power  created  by  the  dam  at  such  a  rate  and  on  such  conditions  and  for  such  periods 
of  time  as  may  be  just,  equitable,  and  expedient,  the  said  leases  or  licenses  to  be  lim- 
ited to  the  use  of  the  surplus  water  not  required  for  navigation  and  to  a  period  not 
exceeding  20  years. 

It  further  approves  of  the  recommendation  of  Col.  Black  for  the 
construction  of  power  flumes  and  for  the  con-^  may  be  necessary  for 
the  development  and  use  of  said  said  water  power. 

It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  the  work  of  improving  the  Hudson 
River  at  this  point  was  initiated  with  the  purpose  held  out  to  the 
National  Government  of  acquiring  the  surplus  waters  at  Troy  Dam 
and  disposing  of  the  same  either  to  the  present  lessees  or  to  other 
lessees,  the  revenues  from  which  to  belong  to  the  United  States  Gov- 
ernment. 

The  appropriation  in  the  river  and  harbor  bill  for  the  improvement 
of  the  Hudson  at  this  point  seems  to  have  been  made  with  the  view 
of  carrying  out  the  recommendation  of  acquiring  the  surplus  waters 
by  the  National  Government.  The  appropriation  is  made  with  this 
proviso : 

That  the  expenditure  of  the  amounts  herein  and  hereafter  appropriated  for  said  im- 
provement Aall  be  subject  to  the  conditions  set  forth  in  said  document. 

This  refers  to  Document  No.  719,  which  contains  the  report  of  Col. 
Black  and  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers. 

The  action  of  the  canal  board  in  attempting  to  rescind  the  leases 
was  recommended  by  Col.  Black  and  was  a  step  in  the  consummation 
of  the  purpose  of  the  National  Government  to  build  the  dam  and 
control  the  water  power. 

The  action  of  the  canal  board,  therefore,  was  not  pursuant  to  the 
terms  of  the  leases  themselves,  but  for  an  entirely  different  purpose, 
and  one  which  I  believe  the  law  does  not  sustain. 

The  title  to  the  bed  of  navigable  streams  and  to  the  waters  therein 
is  in  the  State,  and  can  not  be  released  or  ceded  to  the  National  Gov- 
ernment by  the  canal  board,  directly  or  indirectly. 

In  People  v.  Tibbitts  (19  N.  Y.,  523)  the  ownership  of  the  surplus 
waters  of  the  Troy  dam  was  under  consideration  by  the  court.  The 
action  was  brought  against  one  Tibbitts,  a  son  of  one  of  the  original 
lessees,  to  recover  rent  reserved  in  the  lease.  The  defendant  claimed 
that  he  was  the  riparian  owner,  and  therefore  the  owner  of  the  surplus 
waters  mentioned  in  the  lease,  and  hence  that  the  covenants  con- 
tained in  the  lease  on  the  part  of  the  lessee  were  without  considera- 
tion, and  could  not  be  enforced.    The  court  says,  at  page  52: 

It  is  beyond  dispute  that  the  State  is  the  absolute  owner  of  the  navigable  rivers 
within  its  borders,  and  that  as  such  owner  it  can  dispose  of  them  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  riparian  owners. 

In  this  case  the  State  exercised  its  power  of  disposition  in  making  the  lease,  and 
consequently  such  lease  is  valid. 


» At  point  indicated  a  line  of  matter  appears  to  have  been  omitted  from  copy  furnished  United  States 
Engineer  Office,  New  York  Canal. 

54559— S.  Doc.  887,  62-2  3 


34 


HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


In  Kniglit  v.  United  Lands  Association  (142  U.  S.,  161)  Mr.  Jus- 
tice Lamar,  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  United  States  Supreme 
Court,  said: 

It  is  the  settled  rule  of  law  in  this  court  that  absolute  property  in  and  dominion 
tind  sovereignty  over  the  soils  under  the  tidewaters  in  the  original  States  were  reserved 
to  the  several  States,  and  that  the  new  States  since  admitted  have  the  same  rights, 
sovereignty,  and  jurisdiction  in  that  behalf  as  the  original  States  possess  within  their 
Respective  borders. 

In  Illinois  Kailroad  Co.  v.  People  (146  U.  S.,  387)  the  court  said: 

It  is  the  settled  rule  of  this  country  that  the  ownership  of  and  dominion  and  sover- 
eignty over  lands  covered  by  tidewaters  within  the  limits  of  the  several  States  belong 
to  the  respective  States  within  which  they  are  found,  and  with  the  consequent  right 
to  use  or  dispose  of  any  portion  thereof  when  that  can  be  done  without  substantial 
impairment  of  the  interest  of  the  {5ublic  in  the  waters,  and  subject  always  to  the  para- 
mount right  of  Congress  to  control  their  navigation,  so  far  as  may, be  necessary  for  the 
xegulation  of  commerce  witTi  foreign  nations  and  among  the  States.  This  doctrine 
has  often  been  announced  by  this  court  and  is  not  questioned  by  counsel  of  any  of  the 
parties. 

This  sets  forth  beyond  question  the  legal  principle  that  covers  the 
ownership  of  the  surplus  waters.  Congress  may  enter  the  Hudson 
River  or  any  other  navigable  stream  in  the  State,  but  only  for  the 
purpose  of  regulating  and  improving  commerce.  To  this  end  it 
may  erect  dams  and  locks,  but  if  power  be  generated  thereby,  this 
power  does  not  belong  to  the  United  States  Government,  as  it  is  not 
an  incident  to  the  exercise  of  the  right,  on  behalf  of  the  National  Gov- 
ernment, of  improving  or  regulating  commerce. 

A  further  criticism  may  be  made  of  the  action  of  the  canal  board 
in  undertaking  to  rescind  these  leases.  The  canals  of  the  State  must 
be  operated  by  the  State,  and  this  power  can  not  be  delegated. 

The  constitution  of  1894,  Article  VII,  section  8,  provides: 

The  legislature  shall  not  sell,  lease,  or  otherwise  dispose  of  the  Erie  Canal,  the  Oswego 
Canal,  the  Champlain  Canal,  the  Cayuga  and  Senaca  Canal,  or  the  Black  River  Canal, 
but  they  shall  remain  the  property  of  the  State  and  under  its  management  forever. 

I  repeat  that  all  that  the  State  can  yield  to  the  National  Govern- 
ment is  that  which  the  National  Government  itself  possesses,  namely, 
the  right  to  enter  for  the  purpose  of  improving  or  regulating  commerce, 
and  for  no  other  purpose  whatever. 

If  the  plan  outlined  by  Col.  Black,  pursuant  to  which  the  appropria- 
tion in  this  case  is  made,  contemplates  the  control  and  management 
of  this  portion  of  the  canal,  or  contemplates  the  development  and  sale 
of  water  power  from  surplus  waters  at  that  point,  to  this  extent  the 
project  invades  the  rights  of  the  State  of  New  York  both  to  control 
the  canals  and  to  own  and  dispose  of  the  surplus  waters  in  the  canals 
and  in  the  Hudson  River  at  this  point. 

I  conclude,  therefore: 

(1)  That  the  action  of  the  canal  board  in  undertaking  to  terminate 
the  leases  above  referred  to  was  without  force  and  effect,  and  that 
the  action  of  the  present  canal  board  in  rescinding  those  proceed- 
ings was  legal  and  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  and  con- 
serving the  contract  rights  of  the  State  and  the  lessees. 

(2)  That,  while  the  National  Government  has  power  to  enter  the 
Hudson  River  at  this  point  and  to  build  a  dam,  this  can  only  be 
done  in  the  interest  of  navigation,  and  not  for  the  purpose  of  con- 
serving and  disposing  of  the  surplus  waters  or  the  power  generated 
therefrom. 


HUDSON  KIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


35 


(3)  That  the  surplus  waters  and  the  power  generated  therefrom 
belong  to  the  State  of  New  York  and  can  not  be  yielded  to  the 
National  Government  by  the  canal  board;  that  if  Congress,  by  the 
construction  of  this  dam,  develops  power,  the  title  to  it  is  in  the 
State  of  New  York. 

It  would  seem,  however,  as  if  there  need  be  no  conflict  of  authority 
in  carrying  on  this  work.  The  appropriation  by  Congress  may  be 
expended  as  contemplated  by  the  Constitution  in  the  interest  of 
navigation,  in  dredging  the  river,  and  in  improving  it  and  maintaining 
it  for  the  benefit  of  the  commerce  that  passes  through  it.  The  State 
may  be  allowed  to  retain  control  of  the  canal,  and  inasmuch  as  the 
State  is  the  owner  of  all  the  surplus  waters,  both  in  the  canal  and  in 
the  river,  it  would  seem  as  if  the  State  should  be  permitted  to  con- 
struct this  dam  and  have  the  control  thereof  and  make  leases  for  the 
use  of  the  power  generated  thereby.  Any  other  condition  would 
bring  a  conflict  of  authority  and  confusion  of  rights  and  many 
embarrassments  to  navigation. 

Dated  Albany,  May  10,  1911. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

Attorney  General. 

Hon.  John  A.  Dix, 

Governor,  Albany,  N.  Y. 


War  Department, 
United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  York  City,  May  23,  1911. 

The  Chief  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

General:  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  it  seems  to  be  imprac- 
ticable to  arrange  for  the  conference  mentioned  in  my  letter  of  May  19 
between  the  attorney  and  State  engineer  of  New  York  and  yourself 
during  the  present  week  since,  although  the  attorney  general  had 
written  that  the  two  State  officials  would  be  glad  to  go  to  Washington 
for  such  a  conference  at  my  convenience,  they  find  it  impossible  to 
to  arrange  one  for  the  date  set,  namely,  Wednesday,  May  24,  and 
they  suggest  no  other  date. 

2.  Since  I  expect  to  be  compelled  to  leave  for  Habana  on  the  28th, 
I  shall  have  to  be  in  my  office  the  closing  days  of  the  current  week 
for  the  purpose  of  arranging  for  the  prosecution  of  the  work  during 
my  absence  in  Habana. 

3.  Since  the  present  working  season  is  well  advanced  and  since  it 
would  be  very  advantageous  to  the  United  States  to  enter  into  con- 
tracts for  dredging  and  dike  construction  during  the  present  season, 
as  well  as  to  make  numerous  repairs  to  the  existing  dikes,  it  is  very 
important  that  the  question  of  the  availability  of  the  existing  appro- 
priation for  expenditure,  in  view  of  the  action  of  the  canal  board  of 
April  26,  1911,  be  settled  at  an  early  date.  In  my  own  opinion,  under 
the  best  legal  advice  which  I  have  been  able  to  obtain,  this  action 
of  April  26  of  the  present  canal  board  is  illegal  and  void.  In  sup- 
port of  this  opinion  I  invite  your  attention  to  the  copy  of  the  letter 
forwarded  you  recently  from  the  New  York  Board  of  Trade  and 


36 


HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


Transportation  to  the  Hon.  Henry  L.  Stimson,  as  well  as  to  my 
earlier  report. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  M.  Black, 

Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers. 


War  Department, 
United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  Yorlc  City,  May  1911. 
The  Chief  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army, 

Washington,  D.  C. 
General:  I  have  the  honor  to  invite  your  attention  to  the  inclosed 
clipping  from  the  Troy  Record  of  Saturday  morning,  May  13,  1911, 
commenting  on  the  action  of  the  authorities  of  tlie  State  of  New  York 
in  regard  to  the  Troy  lock  and  dam.  This  article  is  of  value  as 
showing  the  feeling  of  many  of  the  people  of  the  State  of  New  York 
and  as  showing  the  slight  basis  in  law  for  the  recent  action  of  those 
authorities. 

2.  In  connection  therewith  the  following  review  of  the  action  of 
the  United  States  in  regard  to  this  project  may  be  of  value: 

The  act  approved  March  3,  1905,  directs  a  preliminary  examination 
of  the  Hudson  River  with  a  view  to  extending  the  existing  project  to 
Waterford.  The  report  on  the  preliminary  examination  called  for 
in  this  act,  printed  in  House  Document  No.  539,  Fifty-ninth  Congress, 
second  session,  was  made  by  Col.  W.  R:  Livermore,  Corps  of  Engi- 
neers, under  date  of  March  29,  1906.  In  the  final  paragraph  on  page 
4  of  that  document.  Col.  Livermore  makes  favorable  recommendation 
in  these  words: 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  most  of  the  commerce  which  would  be  benefited  by  the 

Eroposed  improvement  is  of  national  importance,  being  the  through  traffic  by  water 
etween  the  Great  Lakes  and  the  Atlantic  seaboard,  the  section  of  the  Hudson  River 
from  the  State  dam  to  Waterford  is,  in  my  opinion,  worthy  of  improvement  by  the 
United  States  Government  by  the  extension  of  the  existing  project  to  Waterford. 

He  estimates  the  cost  of  the  detailed  survey  at  $1,000.  The 
Board  of  Engineers  for  Rivers  and  Harbors  in  its  review  of  Col. 
Livermore's  recommendation  states  as  follows: 

There  is  at  present  above  the  dam  a  channel  of  10  feet  depth  to  Waterford,  but 
to  overcome  the  difference  of  elevation  at  the  dam  the  State  of  New  York  has  provided 
a  lock  about  130  feet  long  and  28  feet  wide,  with  a  lift  of  about  10  feet  and  depth  on  the 
lower  miter  sill  of  less  than  5  feet.  To  obtain  the  depth  desired  will  require  recon- 
structing the  old  dam  and  raising  it  to  an  elevation  of  about  13  feet  above  low  water  in 
the  tidal  section  and  building  a  new  lock  with  a  suitable  lift  and  a  depth  of  12  feet  on 
the  miter  sills. 

The  present  commerce  of  this  portion  of  the  river  is  that  derived  from  the  Champlain 
Canal,  which  amounted  to  523,244  tons  in  1904,  but  the  barge  canal  which  is  being 
constructed  by  the  State  of  New  York,  at  a  cost  of  $100,000,000,  joins  the  Hudson  at 
Waterford,  and  upon  its  completion  this  section  will  afford  an  outlet  to  both  canals. 
To  render  the  barge  canal  available  for  the  purposes  for  which  it  is  intended  will 
require  the  reconstruction  of  the  lock  and  dam  at  Troy,  either  by  the  State  of  New 
York  or  by  the  General  Government.  While  the  canal  is  a  State  enterprise,  it  is 
designed  for  interstate  commerce,  and  with  the  Great  Lakes  and  the  Hudson  River  will 
form  a  through  navigable  waterway  for  the  transportation  of  products  from  the  North- 
west to  the  Atlantic  seaboard. 

The  board  therefore  concurs  with  the  district  engineer  in  his  opinion  that  the  sec- 
tion of  the  Hudson  River  from  the  State  dam  to  Waterford  is  worthy  of  improvement 
by  the  United  States,  and  recommends  the  survey  necessary  to  obtain  the  informa- 
tion required  for  a  detailed  estimate  of  the  necessary  works. 


HUDSON  RIVEK,  NEW  YORK. 


37 


These  reports  having  been  favorable,  an  allotment  was  made  for 
a  survey  for  the  formation  of  a  project.  The  report  on  this  was  made 
by  Col.  D.  W.  Lockwood,  Corps  of  Engineers,  under  date  of  December 
28,  1906;  and  in  reconimending  in  favor  of  the  work.  Col.  Lockwood 
quotes  the  paragraph  from  Col.  Livermore's  report,  given  above. 
These  reports  were  submitted  by  the  Chief  of  Engineers  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  War  January  18,  1907,  and  by  the  Secretary  of  War  to 
Congress  on  January  19,  1907.  In  forwarding  the  report  Gen.  Mac- 
kenzie states  as  follows : 

The  work  contemplated  in  these  reports  is  entirely  feasible  from  an  engineering 
standpoint.  It  forms  a  part  of  the  work  proposed  by  the  State  of  New  York  for  its 
enlarged  barge  canal  and  is  included  by  the  State  engineer  and  surveyor  in  his  esti- 
mate for  the  canal.  In  its  relation  to  the  New  York  barge  canal  it  is  in  a  position 
■  which  resembles,  in  a  certain  degree,  that  of  the  enlargement  of  Black  Rock  Harbor, 
at  the  other  end  of  the  canal.  This  enlargement  is  also  included  in  the  estimate  of 
the  State  engineer  and  surveyor,  alluded  to  above.  In  both  cases  the  idea  is  expressed 
that  if  the  work  is  not  undertaken  by  the  United  States  Government  it  will  have  to 
be  done  by  the  State  of  New  York. 

Just  how  far  the  United  States  Government  should  undertake  to  extend  its  own 
project  to  meet  the  project  of  the  State  of  New  York  I  am  not  prepared  to  say.  The 
General  Government  has  undertaken  the  Black  Rock  work  at  the  other  end  of  the 
canal,  but  there  the  improvement  is  such  that  great  public  benefit  may  accrue  from 
it,  other  than  that  due  wholly  to  the  traffic  using  the  canal.  In  the  case  of  the 
improvement  now  proposed  in  the  Hudson  River  there  would,  in  my  opinion,  be  no 
warrant  for  the  work  whatever  except  the  use  that  will  be  made  of  it  as  a  link  in  the 
barge  canal,  and  I  consider  therefore  that  it  stands  on  a  somewhat  different  footing 
from  the  Black  Rock  project. 

The  decision  whether  or  not  the  United  States  Government  shall  undertake  this 
improvement,  which  would  otherwise  be  done  by  the  State  of  New  York,  must  rest 
with  Congress,  and  I  therefore  forward  these  reports  without  expressing  any  opinion 
as  to  the  propriety  of  doing  the  work  at  the  expense  of  the  General  Government. 

It  is  possible  that  the  plans  of  the  State  for  its  barge  canal  might  be  furthered  by 
some  modification  in  the  lift  of  the  dam  proposed  in  this  report,  and  I  therefore  sug- 
gest that  this  feature  be  regarded  as  still  open  for  consideration  if  Congress  determine 
to  authorize  tile  work. 

In  his  survey  report  Col.  Lockwood  makes  no  reference  to  the  work  of  maintenance. 
It  is  manifest  that  a  single  lock  in  a  system  can  be  most  efficiently  and  economically 
operated  and  maintained  by  the  party  in  control  of  the  system  as  a  whole.  I  there- 
fore recommend  that  should  the  work  herein  contemplated  be  authorized  by  Congress 
the  appropriation  be  made  subject  to  the  condition  that  the  State  authorities  will 
undertake  to  operate  and  maintain  the  work  when  completed. 

No  action  seems  to  have  been  taken  on  this  report  in  the  river  and 
harbor  act  approved  March  2,  1907.  In  the  river  and  harbor  act 
approved  March  3,  1909,  Congress  directed  a  preliminary  examina- 
tion and  survey  with  project  for — 

Hudson  River,  with  a  view  to  providing  a  channel  not  less  than  200  feet  wide  and  12 
feet  deep  at  all  stages  from  deep  water  in  the  lower  river  to  Waterford,  including  a 
lock  and  dam  at  Troy  suitable  in  size  for  all  probable  purposes  of  navigation  and 
commerce  to  and  from  the  barge  canal. 

The  same  act,  approved  March  3,  1909,  in  the  second  paragraph  of 
section  13,  referring  to  the  preliminary  examination,  directs: 

That  every  report  submitted  to  Congress  in  pursuance  of  this  section, .in  addition  to 
full  information  regarding  the  present  and  prospective  commercial  importance  of  the 
project  covered  hy  the  report,  and  the  benefit  to  commerce  likely  to  result  from  any 
proposed  plan  of  improvement,  shall  contain  also  such  data  as  it  may  be  practicable 
to  secure  regarding  (first)  the  establishment  of  terminal  and  iransfer  facilities;  (second) 
the  development  and  utilization  of  water  power  for  industrial  and  commercial  pur- 
poses; and  (third)  such  other  subjects  as  may  be  properly  connected  with  such 
project:  Provided  further,  That  in  the  investigation  and  study  of  these  questions  con- 
sideration shall  be  given  only  to  their  bearing  upon  the  improvement  of  navigation 
and  to  the  possibility  and  desirability  of  their  being  coordinated  in  a  logical  and  proper 


38 


HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


manner  with  improvements  for  navigation  to  lessen  the  cost  of  such  improvements,  and 
to  compensate  the  Government  for  expenditures  made  in  the  interests  of  navigation. 

In  compliance  with  the  provisions  of  this  act,  my  reports  dated  May 
5,  1909,  and  January  10,  1910,  were  submitted.  After  review  by  the 
Board  of  Engineers  for  Rivers  and  Harbors,  these  were  transmitted 
by  the  Chief  of  Engineers  to  the  Secretary  of  War  February  24,  1910, 
and  by  the  latter  to  Congress  February  28,  1910.  The  project  was 
adopted  by  Congress  in  the  act  approved  June  25,  1910. 

In  1906  Congress  passed  a  general  law  '^to  regulate  th?  construction 
of  dams  across  navigable  waters.''  This  was  amended  by  the  act 
approved  June  23,  1910,  and  makes  provision  by  means  of  which 
cooperation  can  be  secured  between  the  United  States  and  any  person 
or  persons  to  whom  authority  has  been  or  may  hereafter  be  granted 
by  Con'gress  to  construct  and  maintain  a  dam  for  water  power  or  other 
purpose  across  or  in  any  of  the  navigable  waters  of  the  United  States, 
by  means  of  which  power  may  be  developed  and  used  by  such  person 
or  persons  and  the  interests  of  navigation  duly  protected. 

It  is  evident  from  the  above  that  the  adoption  of  the  project, 
including  the  construction  of  the  lock  and  dam  at  Troy,  was  based 
on  the  needs  of  navigation  purely,  and  that  any  revenue  from  water 
power  developed  was  to  be  used  ''to  lessen  the  cost  of  such  improve- 
ments (for  navigation)  and  to  compensate  the  Government  for 
expenditures  made  in  the  interest  of  navigation."  The  discrepancy 
between  the  annual  interest,  at  any  reasonable  rate,  on  the  expendi- 
ture contemplated  by  the  Government  for  the  lock  and  dam  at  Troy 
and  the  work  connected  therewith,  which  would  aggregate  consider- 
ably over  $1,000,000,  and  the  annual  revenue  to  be  obtained  from  the 
power  developed  is  too  great  to  give  groand  for  any  reasonable  belief 
that  the  receipt  of  such  revenue  was  a  controlling  reason  for  the 
Government  to  enter  upon  this  project. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  M.  Black, 
Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers. 


[The  Troy  Record,  Saturday,  May  13,  1911.] 

THE  HUDSON   RIVER  IMPROVEMENT  CONTROVERSY. 

It  is  difficult  to  view  too  seriously  the  situation  created  by  the  Dix  administration 
through  its  repudiation  of  the  agreement  between  the  State  and  the  United  States 
under  which  the  latter  agreed  to  construct  a  new  dam  in  the  Hudson  River  opposite 
the  city  of  Troy  and  at  the  same  time  to  expend  several  millions  on  channel  improve- 
ment in  the  upper  Hudson.  If  the  latest  State  decision  stands,  commencement  of 
work  on  the  dam  will  be  delayed  and  the  structure  will  not  be  ready  for,  use  when 
the  barge  canal  is  opened  for  traffic.  Besides,  the  State  will  be  forced  into  a  heavy 
expenditure  not  contemplated  when  the  original  barge  canal  cost  was  estimated  and 
will  lose  the  amount  which  the  National  Government  has  planned  to  invest  in  the 
dam  designed  by  the  engineers  of  the  War  Department.  There  is  also  danger  that 
the  whole  river  improvement  appropriation  will  fail,  since  the  act  authorizing  the 
outlay  made  the  provision  of  $5,186,064  contingent  upon  cancellation  of  the  present 
water-power  leases  at  the  dam,  and  this  now  is  refused  by  the  State  government. 
Further  action  by  Congress  is  necessary  if  the  appropriation  is  to  be  available  for  the 
work  planned,  and  such  action  probably  could  not  be  secured  until  long  after  the 
opening  of  the  regular  session  next  December. 

A  delay  of  one  or  two  years  therefore  seems  certain  if  the  State  authorities  are  per- 
mitted to  carry  out  their  present  scheme,  and  in  the  end  the  Hudson  improvement  will 
fall  far  short  of  what  has  been  arranged  for  in  the  Government  plans.    The  State 


HUDSON  KIVEK,  NEW  YOKK. 


proposes  to  have  at  the  State  dam  a  lock  of  the  standard  barge-canal  size,  with  only 
12  feet  of  water  over  the  miter  sills,  while  the  national  plan  calls  for  14  feet  over  the 
sills  and  three  gates,  dividing  the  460  feet  of  total  lock  length  into  two  locks,  one  of. 
310  feet  and  one  of  150  feet.  This  would  expedite  the  passage  of  small  boats  and' 
economize  in  the  use  of  water  and  at  the  same  time  would  make  possible  the  use  of 
boats  beyond  the  barge-canal  size  without  rebuilding  the  lock,  a  feature  of  decided' 
importance  in  view  of  the  probability  of  opening  a  route  from  the  Hudson  to  Lake- 
Champlain  for  vessels  of  large  capacity. 

In  explanation  of  its  action  the  State  administration  has  issued  a  statement  pre- 
pared  by  the  attorney  general  which  seeks  to  show  that  the  existing  power  leases  • 
at  the  State  dam  "can  not  be  rescinded  or  terminated  by  the  State  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  lessees  so  long  as  the  dam  where  the  power  is  generated  remains"  or  until  ■ 
"in  the  opinion  of  the  canal  board  or  the  legislature  it  is  necessary  to  resume  the 
waters  for  the  use  and  safety  of  the  canals  or  works  connected  therewith." 

In  order  to  strengthen  the  administration  position  the  statement  points  out  that 
"the  State  is  the  absolute  owner  of  the  navigable  rivers  within  its  borders  and  is  the 
owner  of  all  the  waters  therein  and  of  the  power  developed  from  such  waters,"  the 
National  Government  having  simply  the  right  "to  enter  the  navigable  streams  of  the 
State  for  the  purpose  of  regulating  commerce  with  foreign  nations  and  among  the  sev- 
eral States.  It  may  in  utilizing  this  power  construct  dams  and  locks,  but  has  no 
right  to  sell  the  power  developed  thereby  or  to  use  any  more  than  is  necessary  to 
operate  the  works  thus  created."  In  this  connection  reference  is  made  to  the  report 
submitted  in  January,  1910,  by  Col.  Black,  of  the  Corps  of  Engineers  of  the  War 
Department,  as  evidence  that  "the  work  of  improving  the  Hudson  River  at  this  point 
was  initiated  with  the  one  purpose  held  out  to  the  National  Government  of  acquiring 
the  surplus  waters  at  the  Troy  dam  and  disposing  of  the  same  either  to  the  present 
lessees  or  to  other  lessees,  the  revenues  from  which  to  belong  to  the*  Unites  States 
Government." 

The  statement  concludes  with  the  declaration  that  the  cancellation  of  the  leases 
in  1910  was  without  force  or  effect;  that  the  action  of  the  present  board  in  rescinding 
those  proceedings  was  legal  and  necessary;  "that  while  the  National  Government 
has  power  to  enter  the  Hudson  River  at  this  point  and  to  build  a  dam,  this  can  only 
be  done  in  the  interest  of  navigation  and  not  for  the  purpose  of  conserving  and  dis- 
posing of  the  surplus  waters  or  the  power  generated  therefrom;  that  the  surplus  waters 
and  the  power  generated  therefrom  belong  to  the  State  of  New  York  and  can  not  be 
yielded  to  the  National  Government  by  the  canal  board;  that  if  Congress,  by  the 
construction  of  this  dam,  develops  power,  the  title  to  it  is  in  the  State  of  New  York.'^ 

This  is  the  position  taken  by  the  Dix  administration.  No  one  will  question  certain 
of  the  facts  and  laws  presented,  but  many  will  doubt  the  SDundness  of  the  conclusions 
and  the  wisdom  of  the  acts  based  upon  them.  An  earlier  statement  prepared  in  the 
executive  chamber  at  Albany  asserted  that  there  exists  "in  the  State  of  New  York 
no  authority,  either  past  or  present,  which  would  make  it  possible  to  alienate  from 
the  people  any  portion  of  the  canal,  as  laid  down  and  described  in  the  constitution^ 
whereby  it  states  that  the  canal  system  shall  commence  at  the  foot  of  Congress  Street, 
Troy."  This  argument,  as  well  as  the  one  that  the  State  must  reserve  to  its  people-' 
all  returns  from  its  water  priwers,  is  subject  to  the  restrictions  involved  in  the  undis- 
puted Federal  control,  for  navigation  purposes,  of  the  navigable  waters  of  the  State. 
The  fact  that  no  State  protest  was  made  when  the  National  Government  deepened 
the  channel  in  the  Hudson  between  Congress  Street  and  the  State  dam  is  proof  that 
the  State  authorities  never  have  insisted  upon  a  literal  interpretation  of  State  control 
of  the  navigable  streams  and  their  beds.  A  decision  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the- 
United  States  carries  the  navigable  waters  of  the  Hudson  to  the  rapids  near  Water- 
ford,  and  this  gives  national  control  of  the  waters  at  the  State  dam  so  far  as  navigation- 
may  be  affected.  That  control  was  modified  in  oi'der  to  permit  the  State  to  construct 
the  present  dam,  but  the  United  States  did  not  thus  lose  its  authority,  and  to-day 
has  the  right  to  build  a  new  dam,  with  no  water-power  development  attached  or 
permitted,  and  in  that  way  to  end  a  long  controversv  originating  in  the  desire  of 
certain  individuals  and  corporations  to  perpetuate  a  valuable  privilege  long  enjoyed' 
at  the  expense  of  the  people  of  the  State. 

Another  point  not  taken  into  consideration  by  the  State  officials  in  their  solicitude- 
for  the  saving  of  all  water  power  for  the  people  is  the  fact  that  the  United  States  ia- 
not  engaged  in  power  development  and  is  not  viewing  the  Hudson  River  project  as- 
a  source  of  revenue  from  water  powers.  Its  chief  interest  is  to  see  that  power  enter- 
prises do  not  interfere  with  the  amount  of  water  necessary  for  navigation,  and  its 
plan  for  leases  simply  provides  protection  against  abuse  of  the  water-power  privilege 
to  the  detriment  of  the  navigable  channel.  It  was  reluctant  to  undertake  the  upper 
Hudson  development,  but  at  last  agreed  to  do  so  because  of  the  repeated  requests  ' 


40 


HUDSON  EIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


from  the  people  of  the  State  and  because  it  saw  ^reat  advantage  to  the  whole  country 
from  the  creation  of  larger  navigation  facilities  in  this  portion  of  the  Hudson  River. 
Return  on  the  incidental  horsepower  is  not  precedent  to  construction  of  the  dam. 
Indeed,  the  most  the  Nation  will  do  toward  such  power  development  is  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  dam  for  ultimate  power  uses  and  the  erection  of  gates  to  control  the  flow 
of  the  sur|)lus  water  to  future  hydraulic  development.  The  Secretary  of  War  is 
authorized  to  grant  leases  or  licenses  for  the  water  power  created  at  the  dam,  for  such 
uses  and  such  periods  as  ma5^  be  deemed  just,  equitable,  and  expedient,  the  time 
limit  not  to  exceed  20  years  and  the  water  use  to  be  confined  to  the  surplus  after 
navigation  needs  have  been  met.  It  is  possible  for  the  State  to  secure  such  lease  or 
license  and  to  have  full  control  of  the  available  water  power,  with  the  profits  there- 
from going  to  the  people.  The  National  Government  presumably  would  be  content 
with  a  return  covering  the  interest  on  the  investment  for  power  gates  only  and  a 
sufficient  amount  in  addition  to  extinguish  the  debt  at  the  end  of  an  agreed-upon 
period.  The  State  then  could  sell  this  water  power  to  the  highest  bidder — just  as  it 
will  have  to  do  if  it  puts  a  million  of  State  money  into  the  dam — leaving  the  successful 
individual  or  corporation  to  construct  a  power  house  and  flumes  and  raceways.  This 
would  retain  for  the  people  their  full  rights  and  give  them  the  desired  power  return, 
and  that  without  the  expenditure  of  a  dollar  for  the  dam  or  other  construction,  while 
the  whole  country  would  share  in  the  advantages  flowing  from  a  dam  and  lock  of 
sufficient  capacity  for  present  needs  and  future  ship-canal  use.  The  alternative 
offered  by  the  present  State  officials  is  a  big  State  outlay,  with  locks  limited  to  barges 
of  the  canal  type  and  sales  of  power  which  under  the  most  economical  management 
scarcely  would  meet  the  requirements  for  interest  and  maintenance. 

The  excuse  offered  for  perpetuating  the  power  leases  at  the  State  dam  will  not  be 
accepted  by  the  people  as  adequate.  The  old  canal  board,  in  1910,  declared  the 
leases  canceled  because  the  whole  of  the  water  at  the  dam  is  required  for  the  use  of 
the  canals  of  the  State  and  because  of  the  determina^tion  that  "the  said  dam  and 
lock,  by  the  construction  of  which  the  said  surplus  water  has  been  created,  be,  and 
the  same  hereby  are,  abandoned  and  the  destruction  thereof  be,  and  the  same  is, 
hereby  authorized."  The  fact  that  the  power  was  not  shut  from  the  raceways  of 
the  power  lessees  immediately  after  this  action  by  the  1910  canal  board  is  sufficient 
proof  that  the  purpose  was  to  give  notice  of  the  termination  at  the  time  of  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  old  dam  in  preparation  for  utilization  of  the  new  one  to  be  constructed 
under  National  Government  auspices  and  at  national  expense.  Therefore,  even 
under  the  strained  interpretation  of  the  leases  offered  by  Attorney  General  Carmody, 
the  cancellation  of  the  power  contracts  was  entirely  legal  and  proper,  as  was  declared 
by  Mr.  O'Malley,  attorney  general  in  1910,  who  offered  the  resolution  in  the  old 
canal  board.  An  opinion  of  one  attorney  general  setting  aside  the  opinion  of  another 
attorney  general  would  seem  to  be  a  weak  foundation  for  jeoparding  an  appropria- 
tion of  more  than  five  millions  by  the  General  Government  for  Hudson  River  improve- 
ment and  adding  to  the  burdens  of  the  people  of  the  State  the  more  than  one  million 
required  to  construct  a  dam  distinctly  inferior  to  the  one  planned  by  the  United 
States. 

Here  is  the  situation:  Years  ago  the  State,  with  the  consent  of  the  National  Gov- 
ernment, constructed  a  dam  in  the  Hudson  River  as  an  aid  to  the  operation  of  the 
State  canals.  The  water  power  incidentally  developed  was  leased  to  certain  indi- 
viduals and  corporations  for  $550  on  an  estimated  water  surplus  of  2,200  horsepower 
taken  at  the  powsr  gates  of  the  dam,  or  less  than  30  cents  per  horsepower.  WTiatever 
may  have  been  the  original  value  of  this  power,  it  now  is,  and  for  many  years  has 
been,  worth  from  $5  to  $10  per  horsspower  at  the  gates,  or  $20  if  delivered  at  the 
water  wheels  of  the  users.  When  the  barge-canal  project  was  developed  the  State 
authorities  decided  that  the  best  interests  of  the  people  of  the  State  and  of  the  Nation 
demanded  national  cooperation  in  the  development  of  the  new  navigation  system, 
'and  the  United  States,  with  some  reluctance,  undertook  to  attend  to  the  Hudson 
River  part  on  condition  that  the  State  canceled  the  power  leases  and  cleared  the 
way  for  unimpeded  work.  Approval  of  this  condition  by  the  War  Department  and 
by  Congress  testifies  to  the  soundness  of  the  opinion  of  Attorney  General  O'Malley 
rather  than  that  of  Attorney  General  Carmody,  since  the  National  Government  is 
wise  enough  not  to  have  provided  for  an  expenditure  in  excess  of  five  millions  under 
conditions  which  it  did  not  believe  possible  of  realization.  Having  provided  by  the 
condition  against  possible  legal  complications,  the  Federal  Government  began  its 
preparations  for  improving  the  Hudson,  and  has  expended  from  $35,000  to  $40,000 
on  the  preliminary  work,  and  has  progressed  to  the  point  where  a  contract  for  $300,000 
is  in  force,  with  other  amounts  appropriated  and  an  ultimate  outlay  of  $5,186,064 
provided  for. 


HUDSON  KIVEK,  NEW  YORK. 


41 


When  the  Dix  administration  came  into  authority  it  raised  no  question  as  to  the 
validity  of  the  cancellation  of  the  power  leases  and  the  agreement  between  the  State 
and  the  Nation.  Not  until  four  months  after  it  took  hold  of  the  State  government 
did  it  move  in  the  matter,  and  then  the  first  act  was  to  rescind  the  cancellation  of 
the  power  leases.  This  gives  rise  to  more  than  a  suspicion  that  the  impulse  for  the 
Dix  regime  to  make  this  move  came  from  the  holders  of  the  leases  for  power  at  the 
dam,  who  for  months  have  made  no  secret  of  their  determination  to  retain  the  valuable 
privilege  enjoyed  at  the  expense  of  the  people,  even  if  that  retention  involved  loss 
of  the  national  appropriation  of  $5,186,064  and  a  State  expense  of  more  than  $1,000,000 
for  an  inferior  dam  and  a  navigation  development  limited  to  boats  of  the  barge-canal 

type. 

The  attorney  general  seized  upon  this  contention  of  the  lessees  as  an  excuse  for 
rescinding  the  action  of  the  old  canal  board,  but  in  announcing  it  sought  to  justify 
the  loss  of  the  Federal  appropriation  and  the  outlay  of  $1,000,000  by  the  State  by 
estimating  a  State  revenue  from  power  at  the  new  dam  at  $100,000.  As  the  highest 
estimate  of  the  horsepower  to  be  developed  under  the  new  conditions  is  2,000  at  the 
gates  of  the  dam  and  2,000  more  by  resort  to  long  flumes  and  raceways,  it  is  seen  that 
the  attorney  general  proposes  to  lease  the  surplus  waters  at  about  $25  per  horsepower, 
against  less  than  30. cents  paid  by  the  present  lessees.  If  that  is  the  State  purpose, 
the  rejection  of  .the  Government  plans  will  profit  the  present  power  users  nothing, 
since  they  will  not  be  able  to  secure  the  future  water  power  without  paying  its  full 
commercial  value. 

Under  the  national  plan  the  people  of  the  State  would  enjoy  the  water-power  devel- 
opment at  the  dam  after  paying  only  the  interest  and  principal  on  the  cost  of  the 
gates  controlling  the  surplus  waters,  estimated  at  $100,000.  Under  the  Dix  adminis- 
tration plan  the  ])eople  will  obtain  the  benefits  of  the  water  power  only  after  paying 
not  less  than  $1,000,000  for  the  dam  and  providing  for  the  by  no  small  moans  cost 
of  maintenance  of  the  structure.  Is  it  difficult  to  decide  which  plan  the  better  carries 
out  the  letter  and  the  spirit  of  the  determination  of  the  State  to  conserve  the  water 
powers  of  the  Commonwealth  for  the  enjoyment  and  advantage  of  its  people? 


War  Department, 
WasJdngton,  May  23, 1911. 

The  Attorney  General. 

Sir:  The  river  and  harbor  act  of  June  25,  1910  (Public,  No.  264), 
made  an  appropriation  of  $1,350,000  for  improving  the  Hudson  River 
in  accordance  with,  the  report  submitted  in  House  Document  No.  719 
(61st  Cong.,  2d  sess.),  and  provided,  inter  alia,  ''the  expenditure  of 
the  amounts  herein  and  hereafter  appropriated  for  said  improvement 
shall  be  subject  to  the  conditions  set  forth  in  said  document." 

The  plan  submitted  in  said  report  contemplated  the  construction 
of  a  new  lock  and  dam  in  the  vicinitv  of  Troy,  N.  Y.,  about  1,400  feet 
north  of  the  State  dam,  the  removal  of  said  State  dam,  and  the  con- 
tinuation of  the  channel  from  deep  water  in  the  lower  river  through 
said  State  dam  to  Waterford,  it  being  stated  in  said  report  that  ''it 
is  advisable  for  the  General  Government  to  undertake  the  improve- 
ment of  the  Hudson  River  from  deep  water  up  to  Waterford,  pro- 
vided all  existing  power  rights  or  privileges  affected  by  the  improve- 
ment are  extinguished  by  the  State  of  New  York,"  etc. 

After  the  passage  of  the  act,  when  it  became  apparent  that  the 
prosecution  of  the  work  would  be  facilitated  by  the  immediate 
abandonment  of  the  State  lock  and  dam,  the  matter  was  brought  to 
the  attention  of  the  governor  of  New  York  by  War  Department 
indorsement  of  August  5,  1910,  on  Engineer  Department  letter  of 
August  4,  1910.  In  response  to  this  communication  the  State  canal 
board,  at  a  meeting  held  on  November  22,  1910,  passed  a  resolution 
formally  abandoning  the  State  lock  and  dam  and  authorizing  their 
destruction,  this  abandonment  being  understood  to  include  the 


42 


HUDSON  EIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


extinguishment  of  the  existing  power  rights  and  privileges  connected 
with  said  dam.  Subsequent  to  the  passage  of  this  resolution  the 
State  board  of  public  works  transmitted  to  the  Secretary  of  War  a 
copy  of  the  same  and  advised  him  that  possession  might  be  taken  of 
the  structures  at  any  time,  and  that  the  water  rights  at  either  end  of 
the  dam  had  been  canceled.  Thereupon  the  Engineer  Department 
proceeded  with  the  necessary  preliminary  operations,  involving  the 
expenditure  of  considerable  sums  of  money,  and  entered  into  a  con- 
tract for  dredging  and  rock  excavation  covering  nearly  $300,000 
worth  of  work,  to  be  commenced  during  the  present  month. 

After  these  expenditures  and  the  execution  of  said  contract,  the 
governor  of  New  York  presented  a  resolution  of  the  State  canal  board, 
approved  April  28,  1911,  rescinding  the  aforesaid  resolution  of  Novem- 
ber 22,  1910,  abandoning  the  lock  and  dam,  indicating  an  intention 
to  retain  the  control  or  these  structures  and  requesting  the  War 
Department  to  amend  the  adopted  project  for  the  improvement  of 
the  river. 

As  a  result  of  this  attitude  on  the  part  of  the  State  authorities,  a 
conference  was  held  in  Albany  on  May  9,  1911,  with  the  governor, 
the  attorney  general,  and  the  State  engineer  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
at  which  Col.  \V.  M.  Black,  the  local  engineer  officer,  who  represented 
the  United  States  at  the  conference,  was  requested  to  submit,  for  the 
views  of  the  War  Department,  certain  questions,  which  are  substan- 
tially the  first  three  questions  hereinafter  submitted  for  your  opinion. 
If  the  expenditure  of  the  entire  appropriation  is  conditioned  upon  the 
consent  of  the  State  to  the  destruction  of  the  State  dam  and  the 
extinguishment  of  the  power  rights  now  existing  at  said  dam,  it  will 
appear  that  the  withdrawal  of  the  consent  heretofore  given,  if  opera- 
tive, places  the  War  Department  in  an  embarrassing  position,  since 
considerable  expenditures  have  been  made  and  a  contract  let  on  the 
faith  of  such  consent. 

I  have  the  honor,  therefore,  to  request  your  opinion  on  the  follow- 
ing questions : 

(1)  Whether  the  portion  of  the  appropriation  made  by  the  act  of 
June  25,  1910,  which  is  to  be  expended  otherwise  than  in  the  con- 
struction of  the  proposed  lock  and  dam,  may  be  expended  without  the 
consent  of  the  State  of  New  York  to  the  removal  of  the  present  dam. 

(2)  Whether  any  portion  of  the  appropriation  is  available  for  ex- 
penditure without  the  extinction  of  the  power  rights  now  existing  at 
said  dam  and  referred  to  in  the  report  mentioned  in  the  appropria- 
tion. 

(3)  Whether,  if  the  United  States  should  build  the  proposed  dam, 
as  authorized  by  the  act  of  Congress,  and  thereby  create  water  power, 
the  water  power  so  created  belongs  to  the  United  States. 

(4)  Whether,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  State  gave  its  consent 
to  the  abandonment  and  destruction  of  the  State  dam  at  Troy 
by  resolution  of  the  State  canal  board  of  November  22,  1910,  and 
provided,  it  is  understood,  for  the  extinction  of  the  water  rights 
connected  therewith,  together  with  the  fact  that  the  United  States 
has  proceeded  on  the  faith  of  such  action  on  the  part  of  the  State 
authorities  with  the  work  of  the  improvement,  it  would  be  competent 
for  the  State  authorities  to  rescind  such  action,  or  whether  the  resolu- 
tion of  April  28,  1911,  should  not  be  regarded  as  inoperative  to  accom- 
plish its  purpose. 


HUDSON  EIVEK,  NEW  YORK. 


43 


I  inclose  for  your  information  a  letter  from  Col.  Black,  dated  May 
10,  1911,  and  invite  your  attention  to  the  indorsements  thereon  by 
the  Chief  of  Engineers  and  the  Judge  Advocate  General,  and  also  to 
inclosed  copy  of  a  report  by  the  Chief  of  Engineers  dated  May  6^ 
1911.  It  is  requested  that  the  accompanying  papers  be  returned 
with  your  opinion. 

Very  respectfully,  Robert  Shaw  Oliver, 

Acting  Secretary  of  War. 


Views  Conflict  on  Hudson  Dam. 

carmody  declares  that  control  rests  with  the  state — his  criticism  of  engi- 
neer— board  believes  that  federal  government  should  control. 

Albany,  May  21. 

Under  instructions  of  the  State  canal  board,  Attorney  General  Carmody  has  sent  a 
letter  to  Edward  A.  Bond,  chairman  of  the  advisory  board  of  barge  canal  consulting 
engineers,  criticizing  him  for  taking  a  position  hostile  to  that  taken  by  the  present 
Democratic  canal  board  in  regard  to  the  proposed  construction  of  a  dam  and  improve- 
ments on  the  Hudson  River  at  Troy.  The  canal  board  has  ruled  that  the  disposal  of 
the  surplus  waters  and  power  resulting  from  the  improvements  should  be  vested  in 
the  State,  while  Mr.  Bond  contends  that  the  improvements  should  be  made  as  author- 
ized by  the  former  Republican  canal  board,  with  the  Federal  Government  practi- 
cally controlling  the  power  created  by  the  surplus  watefs  from  the  dam. 

"Does  the  State  desire  to  surrender  to  the  National  Government  the  control  of  a 

J)ortion  of  the  canal  for  the  purpose  of  allowing  the  National  Government  to  accumu- 
ate  aijd  sell  water  power  at  that  point?"  asks  Mr.  Carmody.  "Are  you,  or  are  you 
not,  in  favor  of  this  proposition?  The  canal  board  is  not  in  favor  of  it.  It  regards  it 
as  a  betrayal  of  the  right  of  the  people,  both  from  a  legal  and  an  economic  standpoint. 
Conservative  estimates  show  that  water  power  may  be  accumulated  of  a  sufhcient 
value  within  a  very  few  years  to  pay  for  the  structure.  This  should  belong  to  the 
State." 

Mr.  Carmody  reiterates  that  the  National  Government  may  improve  the  Hudson 
River  in  the  interest  of  navigation,  but  the  State  should  retain  the  ownership  and 
control  of  its  water  power  and  of  its  canal.  The  attorney  general  also  says  the  canal 
board  has  taken  action  upon  the  insistent  recommendation  of  Gov.  Dix  for  the  pur- 
pose of  maintaining  the  State's  rights. 

The  letter  is  part  of  the  correspondence  defining  the  attitude  of  the  new  Democratic 
administration  in  opposing  the  plans  of  the  Federal  Government  and  the  former 
Republican  canal  board  regarding  the  construction  of  a  dam  in  the  Hudson  River  at 
Troy.    The  correspondence  was  made  public  by  Gov.  Dix  to-day. 

The  correspondence  includes  letters  by  Chairman  Edward  A.  Bond  and  Edward 
Brooks  Frye,  of  the  State  advisory  board,  favoring  the  plans  of  the  Federal  authorities 
and  the  reply  by  Attorney  General  Carmody  opposing  them. 


War  Department, 
United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  York  City,  May  27,  1911. 

The  Chief  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army, 

War  Department,  Washington,  D.  C. 

General:  The  attitude  of  the  authorities  of  the  State  of  New  York 
is  so  pecuHar,  and  the  legal  opinions  and  quotations  of  law  made  by 
them  are  so  at  variance  with  the  actual  law,  as  I  understand  it  and 
as  I  am  instructed  by  legal  friends,  that  I  am  sending  from  time  to 
time  quite  a  great  deal  of  written  and  printed  matter  to  your  office 
for  use  in  any  conference  which  may  be  had  with  the  State  officials,  a 
conference  at  which  it  now  appears  I  may  not  be  present. 


44 


HUDSON  RIVEK,  NEW  YORK. 


2.  The  whole  attitude  of  the  State  authorities  in  taking  action  on 
partial  information  and  ex  parte  statements,  without  making  any 
endeavor  beforehand  to  find  out  from  the  United  States  officials  the 
true  status  of  the  matter,  would  seem  to  imply  some  motive  for  their 
action  which  does  not  appear  on  the  surface,  and,  in  fact,  the  course 
of  action  taken  might  be  deemed  discourteous  to  the  United  States 
authorities. 

3.  The  State  authorities  profess  that  the  action  by  them  has  noth- 
ing to  do  whatever  with  tlie  interests  of  the  persons  enjoying  the  use 
of  the  power  at  the  Troy  Dam,  and  the  designs  of  the  State  authori- 
ties, as  expressed  to  me  verbally  at  the  conference  at  Albany,  would 
be  just  as  disastrous  to  the  present  users  of  the  power  as  are  the  proj- 
ects of  the  United  States,  yet  the  agents  of  these  said  users  are,  and 
have  been,  actively  employed  in  endeavoring  to  bring  about  this  very 
action  by  the  State  authorities  and  to  confirm  and  perpetuate  it. 
Specific  evidence  of  this  could  be  given  if  desired. 

4.  The  whole  matter  has  been  handled  by  the  State  authorities  in  a 
manner  so  much  at  variance  with  any  experience  I  have  heretofore 
had  in  dealing  with  State  and  city  officials  that  I  am  entirely  at  a  loss 
to  know  how  either  to  view  or  meet  these  methods.  It  looks  as 
though  the  State  authorities  had,  for  reasons  of  their  own,  determined 
on  a  course  of  action  and  were  intent  on  carr3dng  it  out  without  any 
regard  whatever  to  any  embarrassments  they  might  cause  to  the 
United  States  authorities  or  to  the  work. 

5.  Your  attention  is  inv^ited  to  the  small  excerpt  from  one  of  the 
Albany  papers  inclosed  herewith. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  M.  Black, 
Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers. 

[First  indorsement.] 

War  Department, 
Office  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers, 

Washington,  June  1,  1911. 

1.  Respectfully  returned  to  Col.  Black. 

2.  Under  the  act  of  Congress  the  appropriation  for  the  Troy  dam 
and  upper  Hudson  River  work  was  made  subject  to  certain  condi- 
tions, which  the  State  of  New  York  could  comply  with  or  not  at  its 
pleasure.  It  is  not  the  duty  of  the  Federal  Government  to  make 
decisions  for  the  State  or  to  influence  its  choice;  but  so  long  as  the 
State  fails,  or  so  soon  as  the  State  ceases,  to  comply  with  the  con- 
ditions of  the  Federal  act  the  Federal  officers  concerned  should  refrain 
from  or  cease  further  work  under  the  appropriation  until  ordered  to 
recommence  by  the  War  Department  or  by  Congress,  except  that  in 
case  of  doubt  on  the  part  of  the  district  officer,  where  a  report  of 
facts  has  been  made,  work  in  actual  progress  need  not  be  discontinued 
until  the  report  has  been  specially  acted  upon  by  the  higher  officers 
or  officials. 

3.  Attention  is  invited  to  the  accompanying  copy,  which  may  be 
retained,  of  department  letter  dated  May  25,  1911,  to  the  Attorney 
General. 

W.  H.  BlXBY, 

Ckief  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army. 


HUDSON  KIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


45 


[Second  indorsement.] 

United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  YorTc,  N.  Y.,  June  7,  1911. 

1.  Respectfully  returned  to  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  United  States 
Army. 

2.  In  addition  to  the  preparation  of  the  plans  for  the  general 
improvement  of  the  Hudson,  the  works  now  being  carried  on  and 
paid  for  under  that  appropriation  are  as  follows: 

{a)  Rock  excavation  and  dredging  under  contract  with  Michael  J. 
Dady. 

(6)  Contract  for  stone  for  dike  work. 

(c)  Purchase  of  survey  and  storage  scows. 

{d)  Repairs  to  dikes  required  for  the  maintenance  of  the  improve- 
ment already  made. 

In  addition  to  this  there  will  be  required  for  maintenance  dredging . 
operations  in  August  and  September  and  in  the  early  spring  of  1912; 
in  order  not  to  stop  the  navigation  on  the  river: 

(e)  Three  preliminary  examinations  of  various  parts  of  the  upper 
Hudson  called  for  in  the  river  and  harbor  acts  of  1910  and  1911, 
which  reports  have  not  yet  been  submitted. 

3.  The  funds  that  will  be  required  to  continue  the  above  work  until 
July  1,  1912,  by  which  time  further  action  by  Congress  may  be 
expected  are  estimated  as  follows: 


For  work  under  the  Dady  contract   $110,  000 

Contract  for  stone  for  dike  work   2,  530 

Purchase  of  survey  and  storage  scows   950 

Repairs  to  dikes  required  for  maintenance  of  improvement   6,  000 

Emergency  dredging   20,  000 

Preliminary  examinations   200 

Rent  of  storage  yard  and  house  and  care  of  plant   725 

Engineering  and  supervision  '   6,  000 


Total   146,405 


Of  this  total,  as  stated,  $112,530  are  required  for  payment  and 
supervision  of  existing  contracts  under  the  new  project,  $33,675  for 
works  of  maintenance,  and  $200  for  preliminary  examinations  of  the 
upper  Hudson  River. 

4.  The  total  consideration  of  the  contract  with  Mr.  Dady  for  rock 
removal  is  $282,000,  and  the  figures  given  above  represent  the  cost 
of  the  amount  of  work  which  it  is  expected  will  be  done  prior  to 
July  1,  1912,  under  this  contract  plus  10  per  cent  for  engmeering 
and  office  expenses.  Funds  should  be  provided  for  the  various  works 
enumerated  above  and  in  the  amount  as  stated,  in  order  to  prevent 
action  for  damages  against  the  Government  for  violation  of  the 
contract  with  Mr.  Dady  and  losses  by  the  destruction  of  various  of 
the  injured  dikes  and  by  the  failure  to  maintain  navigation  under  the 
old  12-foot  project  during  the  season  of  1911  and  the  spring  of  1912. 

5.  Preparations  are  now  being  made  for  early  advertisement  for 
proposals  for  dike  construction  under  the  latest  approved  subproject 
witn  a  view  to  obtaining  a  depth  of  12  feet  at  all  stages  and  for 
necessary  enlargement  of  existing  dikes  by  hired  labor  under  the  same 
project.  Work  is  also  being  done  in  perfecting  the  plans  for  the 
lock  and  dam  at  Troy  and  preparing  the  specifications  for  contract. 


46 


HUDSON  EIVEK,  NEW  YOEK. 


6.  Instructions  are  respectfully  requested  as  to  what  work  shall 
be  continued  under  the  recent  decision  of  the  Attorney  General.  In 
case  it  should  be  decided  that  nothing  can  be  done  with  the  funds 
of  the  appropriation  other  than  the  prosecution  of  the  work  under 
the  existing  contract,  it  is  respectfully  recommended  that  an  allot- 
ment of  $200  be  made  for  preliminary  examinations  of  the  Hudson 
and  of  $34,000  for  maintenance.  The  wording  of  the  act  would  seem 
to  authorize  the  works  necessary  for  the  maintenance  of  the  channel 
of  the  old  project  with  the  appropriations  as  they  now  stand  but  to 
make  unavailable  any  funds  for  the  prosecution  of  work  under  the 
new  project,  unless  the  conditions  named  are  complied  with  by  the 
State  of  New  York. 

W.  M.  Black, 
Colonel,  Corps  oj  Engineers. 


Albany,  N.  Y.,  May  26,  1911. 

Hon.  Robert  Shaw^  Oliver, 

Acting  Secretary  of  War,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Sir:  Gov.  Dix  directs  me  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  commu- 
nication of  the  24th  instant,  and  to  say  that  the  request  therein  has 
been  transmitted  to  the  Hon.  John  A.  Bensel,  State  engineer  and 
surveyor. 

Very  truly,  yours,  John  A.  Mason, 

Secretary  to  tJie  Governor. 


Department  of  Justice, 

Washington,  May  29,  1911. 

The  Secretary  of  War. 

Sir:  I  beg  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  25th 
instant  in  regard  to  the  appropriation  for  the  improvement  of  the 
Hudson  River  in  the  river  and  harbor  act  of  June  25,  1910,  and 
requesting  my  opinion  upon  certain  questions  growing  out  of  the 
action  of  the  governor  of  the  State  of  New  York  in  attempting  to 
rescind  the  resolution  of  the  State  canal  board  abandoning  the  State 
lock  and  dam  at  Troy,  N.  Y. 

An  opinion  will  be  prepared  and  sent  you  as  soon  as  practicable. 

For  the  Attorney  General: 

W.  R.  Harr, 
Assistant  Attorney  General, 


War  Department, 
Washington,  June  27,  1911. 

Memorandum  for  Maj.  Cavanaugh: 

Mr.  W.  W.  Loomis,  president  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce,  Troy, 
N.  Y.,  with  two  other  gentlemen,  were  heard  as  to  the  construction 
of  the  dam  and  lock  in  the  Hudson  River  at  Troy.  They  favor  the 
upper  location  as  per  plans  of  Col.  Black.  They  wish  the  lock  and 
the  channel  on  the  Troy  side  of  the  river,  in  order  to  keep  the  benefit 
of  the  wharves  already  constructed  below  the  present  dam,  and  also 
to  keep  the  future  commerce  and  development  of  the  river  on  their 
side.    They  also  say  that  the  upper  dam  would  develop  nearly  double 


HUDSON  KIVEE,  NEW  YOKK. 


47 


the  water  power  of  the  lower,  and  they  wish  that  utilized  for  the 
benefit  of  Troy. 

They  say  that  the  opposition  to  them  comes  from  the  water-power 
interests  now  involved  in  the  present  dam,  who  are  getting  water- 
power  rights  worth  $20,000  a  year  for  a  rental  of  $500  or  $600.  They 
also  suggest  political  considerations  as  involved  in  the  construction 
of  the  new  dam  by  the  present  State  engineer  of  New  York. 

H.  L.  Stimson, 
Secretary  oj  War. 


War  Department, 
WasTiington,  June  30,  1911. 

Hon.  John  A.  Dix, 

Tlie  Capitol,  Albany,  N.  Y. 

My  Dear  Gov.  Dix:  In  answer  to  your  telegram  which  I  received 
last  evening,  I  this  morning  telegraphed  you  as  follows: 

I  shall  be  unable  to  give  matter  of  Troy  Dam  my  personal  attention  until  after  my 
return  from  Panama  in  August.  If  desired,  Acting  Secretary  Oliver  will  give  hearing 
to  gentlemen  mentioned  in  your  telegram  during  my  absence. 

Since  sending  this  telegram  I  have  ascertained,  however,  that  a 
request  was  made  by  the  War  Department  a  short  time  ago  for  an 
opmion  of  the  Attorney  General  upon  certain  legal  questions  which 
will  arise  in  connection  with  this  matter  of  the  Troy  Dam.  It  appears 
that  in  November,  1910,  the  New  York  State  administration  passed 
a  resolution  abandoning  the  dam  and  so  notified  the  War  Department. 
On  the  strength  of  that  notification  expenditures  have  been  made 
in  the  Hudson  River  improvement.  Last  April  the  new  adminis- 
tration passed  a  resolution  revoking  the  old  resolution  and  so  notified 
the  department.  One  of  the  questions  now  before  the  Attorney 
General  is  whether  or  not  such  revocation  could  legally  be  made. 

I  suggest  now,  therefore,  that  it  will  be  advisable  for  the  attorney 
general  of  the  State  and  the  State  engineer  to  defer  coming  before 
Acting  Secretary  Oliver,  if  they  plan  to  come,  until  after  we  have 
heard  from  the  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States  on  these  fun- 
damental questions.  Gen.  Oliver  will  be  in  a  far  better  position  to 
define  the  scope  of  a  hearing  after  that  opinion  is  received  than  now. 
As  soon  as  the  opinion  is  received  he  will  communicate  with  you 
again  as  to  this  matter. 

Very  respectfully,  yours,  Henry  L.  Stimson. 


[Telegram.] 

Albany,  N.  Y.,  June  29,  1911. 

The  Secretary  of  War, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

The  attorney  general  and  the  State  engineer  of  the  State  of  New 
York  are  ready  at  your  convenience  to  appear  in  Washington  before 
jou  in  regard  to  the  matter  of  the  Troy  dam  previously  referred  to 
in  the  correspondence  between  the  Secretary  of  War  and  the  gov- 
ernor of  the  State  of  New  York. 

John  A.  Dix,  Governor, 


48 


HUDSON  EIVEK,  NEW  YOKK. 


[Telegram.] 

June  30,  1911. 

Hon.  John  A.  Dix, 

TJie  Capitol,  Albany,  N.  Y. 

I  shall  be  unable  to  give  matter  of  Troy  dam  my  personal  attention 
until  after  my  return  from  Panama  in  August.  If  desired,  Acting 
Secretary  Oliver  will  give  hearing  to  gentlemen  mentioned  in  your 
telegram  during  my  absence. 

Henry  L.  Stimson, 

Secretary  of  War. 

Albany,  July  7,  191 L 

Hon.  Henry  L.  Stimson, 

Secretary  of  War,  Washington,  D.  C. 

My  Dear  Secretary  Stimson:  I  have  received  your  letter  of  June 
30  with  regard  to  a  proposed  conference  between  the  attorney  general, 
the  State  engineer,  and  Acting  Secretary  Oliver  concerning  the  Troy 
dam. 

As  you  suggest  a  desire  for  a  postponement,  the  attorney  general 
and  the  State  engineer  will  await  a  further  communication  from  your 
department  before  taking  up  again  the  discussion  of  the  questions 
involved. 

Very  truly,  yours,  John  A.  Dix. 

[Second  indorsement.] 

War  Department, 
Office  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers, 

Washington,  July  20,  1911. 

1.  Respectfully  returned  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  attention  being 
invited  to  War  Department  letter  of  June  30,  1911,  to  Gov.  Dix. 

2.  Report  with  appropriate  recommendations,  based  upon  the  opin- 
ion of  the  Attorney  General,  is  submitted  in  indorsement  of  this  date 
on  7771/328,  E.  D. 

EwD.  Burr, 
Acting  Chief  of  Engineers. 


Opinion  of  United  States  Attorney  General  re  Construction 
OF  New  Lock  and  Dam  at  Troy,  N.  Y. 

[The  words  italicized  appear  so  in  the  original.] 

construction  of  new  lock  and  dam  at  troy,  n.  y. 

The  appropriation  in  the  river  and  harbor  act  of  June  25,  1910 
(36  Stat.,  635),  for  improving  the  Hudson  River,  which  contemplated 
the  construction  of  a  new  lock  and  dam  in  the  vicinity  of  Troy  and 
removal  of  the  State  dam,  was  conditioned  upon  the  extinguishment 
by  the  State  of  all  existing  power  rights  or  privileges  affected  by 
improvement,  and  after  the  existing  power  rights  and  privileges  in 
question  had  been  extinguished  by  the  State  canal  board  it  was 
beyond  the  power  of  the  State  to  interfere  with  the  improvement 
authorized,  in  view  of  the  paramount  control  of  Congress  over  the 
Hudson  River  as  a  navigable  waterway  of  the  United  States. 


HUDSON  EIVER,  NEW  YOEK. 


49 


Department  of  Justice,  July  3,  1911. 

Sir:  The  river  and  harbor  act  approved  June  25,  1910  (36  Stat., 
635-636),  contains  the  following  provision: 

Improving  Hudson  River,  New  York:  For  maintenance  and  continuing  improve- 
ment in  accordance  with  the  report  submitted  in  House  Document  Numbered  Seven 
hundred  and  nineteen,  Sixty-first  Congress,  second  session,  and  with  a  view  to  com- 
pleting said  improvement  within  a  period  of  four  years,  one  million  three  hundred 
and  fifty  thousand  dollars:  Provided,  That  the  expenditure  of  the  amounts  herein 
and  hereafter  appropriated  for  said  improvement  shall  be  subject  to  the  conditions 
set  forth  in  said  document:  Provided  further.  That  the  general  plan  for  the  improve- 
ment presented  in  said  document  shall  be  subject  to  such  modification  as  to  the  loca- 
tion ot  the  dam  and  in  matters  of  detail  as  may  be  recommended  by  the  Chief  of 
Engineers  and  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  War. 

In  your  letter  of  May  25,  1911,  referring  to  the  report  of  the  engi- 
neer officers  of  the  War  Department  embodied  in  House  Document 
No.  719,  you  say: 

The  plan  submitted  in  said  report  contemplated  the  construction  of  a  new  lock 
and  dam  in  the  vicinity  of  Troy,  N.  Y.,  about  1,400  feet  north  of  the  State  dam,  the 
removal  of  said  State  dam.  and  the  continuation  of  the  channel  from  deep  water  in 
the  lower  river  through  said  State  dam  to  Waterford,  it  being  stated  in  said  report 
that  "it  is  advisable  for  the  General  Government  to  undertake  the  improvement  of 
the  Hudson  River  from  deep  water  up  to  Waterford,  vrovided  all  existing  power  rights 
or  privileges  affected  by  the  improvement  are  extinguishea  by  the  State  of  New  For/:,','  etc. 

After  the  passage  of  the  act,  when  it  became  apparent  that  the  prosecution  of  the 
work  would  be  facilitated  by  the  immediate  abandonment  of  the  State  lock  and  dam, 
the  matter  was  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  governor  of  New  York  by  War  Depart- 
ment indorsement  of  August  5,  1910,  ou  Engineer  Department  letter  of  August  4, 
1910.  In  response  to  this  communication  the  State  canal  board,  at  a  meeting  held 
on  November  2,  1910,  j)assed  a  resolution  formally  abandoping  the  State  lock  and 
dam  and  authorizing  their  destruction,  this  abandonment  being  understood  to  include 
the  extinguishment  of  the  existing  power  rights  and  privileges  connected  with  said 
dam.  Subsequent  to  the  passage  of  this  resolution  the  State  board  of  public  works 
transmitted  to  the  Secretary  of  War  a  copy  of  the  same  and  advised  him  that  posses- 
sion might  be  taken  of  the  structures  at  any  time,  and  that  the  water  rights  at  either  end 
'>f  the  dam  had  been  canceled.  Thereupon  the  Engineer  Department  proceeded  with 
the  necessary  preliminary  operations,  involving  the  expenditure  of  considerable 
sums  of  money,  and  entered  into  a  contract  for  dredging  and  rock  excavation  covering 
nearly  $300,000  worth  of  work,  to  be  commenced  during  the  present  month. 

After  these  expenditures  and  the  execution  of  said  contract  the  governor  of  New 
York  presented  a  resolution  of  the  State  canal  board  approved  April  28,  1911,  rescind- 
ing the  aforesaid  resolution  of  November  22,  1910,  abandoning  the  lock  and  dam, 
indicating  an  intention  to  retain  the  control  of  these  structures,  and  requesting  the  War 
Department  to  amend  the  adopted  project  for  the  improvement  of  the  river. 

As  a  result  of  this  attitude  on  the  part  of  the  State  authorities  a  conference  was  held 
in  Albany  on  May  9,  1911,  with  the  governor,  the  attorney  general,  and  the  State  engi- 
neer of  the  State  of  New  York,  at  which  Col.  W.  M.  Black,  the  local  engineer  officer, 
who  represented  the  United  States  at  the  conference,  was  requested  to  submit,  for  the 
views  of  the  War  Department,  certain  questions,  which  are  substantially  the  first 
three  questions  hereinafter  submitted  for  your  opinion .  If  the  expenditure  of  the  entire 
appropriation  is  conditioned  upon  the  consent  of  the  State  to  the  destruction  of  the 
State  dam  and  the  extinguishment  of  the  power  rights  now  existing  at  said  dam,  it 
•  will  appear  that  the  withdrawal  of  the  consent  heretofore  given,  if  operative,  places 
the  ^  ar  Department  in  an  embarrassing  position,  since  considerable  expenditures 
have  been  made  and  a  contract  let  on  the  faith  of  such  consent. 

Upon  this  state  of  facts  you  request  my  opinion  on  the  following 
questions : 

(1)  WTiether  the  portion  of  the  appropriation  made  by  the  act  of  June  25,  1910, 
which  is  to  be  expended  otherwise  than  in  the  construction  of  the  proposed  lock  and 
dam,  may  be  expended  without  the  consent  of  the  State  of  New  York  to  the  removal 
of  the  present  dam. 

54659— S.  Doc.  887,  62-2  4 


50 


HUDSON  KIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


(2)  Whether  any  portion  of  the  appropriation  is  available  for  expenditure  without 
the  extinction  of  the  power  rights  now  existing  at  said  dam  and  referred  to  in  the  report 
mentioned  in  the  appropriation. 

(3)  Whether  if  the  United  States  should  build  the  proposed  dam,  as  authorized  by 
the  act  of  Congress,  and  thereby  create  water  power,  the  water  power  so  created  belongs 
to  the  United  States. 

(4)  Whether,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  State  gave  its  consent  to  the  abandonment 
and  destruction  of  the  State  dam  at  Troy,  by  resolution  of  the  State  canal  board  of 
November  22,  1910,  and  provided,  it  is  understood,  for  the  extinction  of  the  water 
rights  connected  therewith,  together  with  the  fact  that  the  United  States  has  proceeded 
on  the  faith  of  such  action  on  the  part  of  the  State  authorities  with  the  work  of  the 
improvement,  it  would  be  competent  for  the  State  authorities  to  rescind  such  action, 
or  whether  the  resolution  of  April  28,  1911,  should  not  be  regarded  as  inoperative  to 
accomplish  its  purpose. 

It  appears  from  House  Document  No.  719  that  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment has  for  some  years  past  been  engaged  in  deepening  and  widen- 
ing the  channel  of  the  Hudson  in  this  vicinity,  several  million  dollars 
having  ah*eady  been  expended  for  the  work  under  appropriations  by 
Congress,  and  that  the  work  authorized  by  the  act  of  June  25,  1910, 
is  in  the  nature  of  an  enlargement  of  the  former  project,  which  did 
not,  however,  include  the  removal  of  the  present  State  dam  and  the 
construction  of  a  new  dam.  It  also  appears  from  such  reports  that 
the  present  plan  contemplates  a  further  deepening  of  the  channel  of 
the  river  beyond  that  authorized  by  the  former  project. 

In  the  report  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers  embodied  in  House  Docu- 
ment No.  719,  it  is  said: 

The  plan  submitted  contemplates  the  construction  of  a  new  lock  and  dam  in  the 
Ticinity  of  Troy,  about  1,400  feet  north  of  the  existing  State  lock  and  dam,  which  will 
be  removed,  and  the  excavation  of  a  channel  from  deep  water  in  the  lower  river  to 
Waterford  12  feet  deep  at  all  stages.  Below  Troy  the  general  width  of  the  channel  is  to 
be  400  feet,  except  at  Albany,  where  it  widens  into  a  basin.  In  the  vicinity  of  Troy 
the  width  above  the  dam  is  to  be  200  feet,  widening  into  a  basin  just  below  the  dam. 
For  a  short  distance  below  the  basin  there  will  be  a  double  channel,  one  on  either  side 
of  Adams  Island  with  widths,  respectively,  of  150  and  200  feet.  Between  the  Dela- 
ware and  the  Hudson  and  Congress  Street  iDridges  the  width  is  to  be  500  feet,  below 
which  it  narrows  to  the  proposed  general  width  of  400  feet. 

This  work  will  extend  nearly  as  far  south  as  Hudson  and  includes  dredging,  rock 
excavation,  construction  of  a  lock,  dam,  and  mooring  piers,  and  removal  of  the  old  lock 
and  dam,  all  at  an  estimated  cost  of  15,186,064.  The  district  officer  considers  the  im- 
provement worthy  of  being  undertaken  by  the  United  States  and  states  that  if  the 
project  is  approved  and  work  authorized,  provision  should  be  made  for  executing 
it  under  the  continuing  contract  system,  the  amount  required  for  the  lock  and  dam 
to  be  provided  by  a  cash  appropriation  of  $300,000,  and  the  balance  to  be  made  avail- 
able within  two  years  in  order  to  insure  completion  within  three  working  seasons.  An 
initial  appropriation  of  $1,000,000  is  required  for  the  work  below  the  dam. 

These  reports  have  been  considered  by  the  Board  of  Engineers  for  Rivers  and  Har- 
bors, and  in  its  opinion  it  is  advisable  for  the  General  Government  to  undertake  the 
improvement  of  the  Hudson  River  from  deep  water  up  to  Waterford,  provided  all  exist- 
ing waterpower  rights  or  privileges  affected  by  the  improvement  are  extinguished  by  the 
State  of  New  York,  it  being  understood,  however,  that  both  plans  and  estimates  are 
general  in  character  and  require  further  careful  study,  particularly  with  reference  to 
the  low -water  plane  and  its  bearing  upon  the  elevation  of  the  lower  sill  of  the  lock. 
The  board  further  states  that  the  cost  of  maintenance  of  this  improvement  will  proba- 
bly not  be  excessive. 

If  it  be  the  policy  of  Congress  to  make  the  connection  of  the  navigable  channel  of  the 
Hudson  River  with  the  State  canal  by  extending  the  former  channel  through  and 
above  the  State  dam  at  Troy  and  by  the  construction  of  a  new  lock  and  dam,  1  agree 
with  the  district  officer,  who  is  also  division  engineer,  and  with  the  Board  of  Engineers 
for  Rivers  and  Harbors  that  Hudson  River  is  worthy  of  improvement  in  this  connec- 
tion at  the  cost  specified. 

*  •*  *  *  *  r*  * 


HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


51 


The  district  officer  has  been  informed  by  the  canal  board  that  it  is  ready  to  abandon 
the  present  lock  and  dam  as  soon  as  new  structures  are  constructed  by  the  United 
States,  and  that  the  project  submitted  meets  with  the  approval  of  the  advisory  board 
of  canal  engineers. 

In  the  report  of  Col.  W.  M.  Black,  of  the  Corps  of  Engineers,  also 
embodied  in  said  House  document,  it  is  said: 

Certain  manufacturing  establishments  on  the  east  and  west  banks  of  the  river  are 
now  using  power  developed  by  the  dam  under  leases  obtained  fron\  the  State  of  New 
York.  The  lease  for  the  east  side  was  obtained  in  1832.  It  may  be  summarized  as 
follows : 

The  lease  is  for  the  use  of  one-half  of  "  *  *  *  the  surplus  waters  created  by  the 
erection  of  the  State  dam  in  the  Hudson  River   *   *    *   for  the  term  of  990  years." 

The  lessees  are  to  pay  to  the  State  *  *  *  $50  for  the  first  year,  with  an  increase 
of  $50  a  year  for  every  year  thereafter  until  it  amounts  to  the  sum  of  §300  a  year  and 
then  to  continue  at  the  said  sum  of  S300  a  year  for  the  remainder  of  said  term. 

The  conditions  of  the  lease  stipulate  that  the  lessees  may  have  *  *  the  use 
of  the  surplus  water  which  may  be  taken  at  the  east  end  of  the  aforesaid  dam  and 
not  exceeding  one-half  of  the  quantity  which  may  be  taken  at  both  ends  of  said  dam, 
such  surplus  water  to  be  taken  and  drawn  from  the  said  dam  at  such  place  and  in  such 
manner  and  be  discharged  at  such  place  and  in  such  manner  as  the  acting  canal  com- 
missioner or  the  canal  commissioners  shall  from  time  to  time  direct;  saving  and  reserv- 
ing to  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part  the  right  wholly  to  resume  the  waters  hereby 
conveyed  and  the  privileges  hereby  granted,  and  to  control  and  limit  the  use  of  said 
water  and  privileges  whenever,  in  the  opinion  of  the  canal  board  or  of  the  legislature, 
the  necessary  supply  of  water  for  use  of  any  State  canal  or  the  safety  of  such  canal, 
or  works  connected  therewith,  shall  render  such  resumption,  control,  or  limitation 
necessary;  and  in  case  any  such  resumption  shall  be  made  or  control  or  limitation 
imposed  no  compensation  or  damages  shall  be  allowed  for  any  improvements  or  erec- 
tions made,  or  which  may  be  made  under  or  in  consequence  of  this  grant  or  lease. 
And  also  saving  and  reserving  to  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part  the  right,  without 
making  any  compensation  to  the  said  parties  of  the  second  part,  or  any  other  person 
claiming  under  them,  wholly  to  abandon  or  destroy  the  work,  by  the  construction  of 
which  the  said  surplus  water  has  been  created  whenever,  in  the  opinion  of  the  canal 
commissioners,  the  occupation  and  use  of  the  said  work  shall  cease  to  be  advantageous 
to  the  State." 

The  lease  granted  for  water  for  the  west  bank  was  made  in  1835  for  the  same  term  of 
years  and  in  similar  form  with  similar  provisions. 

Under  these  leases  certain  manufacturing  establishments  on  the  east  bank  have 
been  using  about  1,740  horsepower  per  year  and  those  on  the  west  bank  about  190 
horsepower.  The  State  authorities  have  permitted  these  establishments  to  raise  the 
crest  of  the  dam  by  flashboards  and  to  store  water  by  night  for  use  during  the  day, 
causing  fluctuations  in  the  pool  level  during  the  season  of  lowest  water,  which  might 
be  inadmissible  when  the  new  barge  canals  are  in  full  operation.  It  is  probable  that 
when  the  new  dam  is  built  there  will  be  surplus  water  sufficient  to  develop  at  least 
1.400  horsepower,  which  should  be  utilized.  A  small  portion  of  this  can  be  used  for 
operating  and  lighting  the  lock;  the  remainder  can  be  sold. 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  abandonment  of  the  existing  structure  by  the  State  extin- 
guishes these  leases  automatically.  The  legal  successors  of  the  canal  commissioners 
are  the  canal  board.  I  am  informed  that  this  body  is  ready  to  abandon  the  dam  as 
soon  as  the  United  States  has  constructed  a  new  lock  and  dam.  The  proposed  change 
in  location  of  the  dam  would  not  prevent  the  continued  use  of  the  surplus  water  for 
obtaining  power  by  these  establishments,  for  a  flume  can  be  constructed  to  supply  it. 
New  and  mutually  advantageous  arrangements  can  be  made  if  desired  with  the  owners 
of  these  establishments  for  this  purpose,  or.  since  the  removal  of  the  site  makes  it  pos- 
sible to  locate  other  new  establishments  in  a  position  which  would  make  it  possible  to 
utilize  the  power,  with  other  parties.  In  other  words,  the  change  in  location  of  the 
dam  would  not  destroy  any  vested  rights  for  the  use  of  the  power  developed  nor  would 
such  removal  prevent  the  present  users  from  continuing  its  use.  It  would,  however, 
place  the  Government  in  a  position  to  obtain  an  adequate  return  for  such  power. 
Time  has  not  permitted  an  estimate  of  cost  of  a  new  flume  to  be  made. 

*  *  *  *  *  * 

•         .        .    .     .  .  . 

To  recapitulate,  attention  is  again  invited  to  the  fact  that  this  report  is  submitted 

on  account  of  the  urgent  need  of  beginning  work  at  and  near  the  State  dam  in  order 
that  the  barge  canal  commerce  may  have  access  to  the  river  as  soon  as  the  canals  are 
opened.   The  detailed  project  has  not  yet  been  com  leted  for  the  reason  that  its 


52 


HUDSON  RIVEK,  NEW  YORK. 


formation  was  not  directed  by  Congress  until  March,  1909,  and  the  field  work  could 
not  be  completed  until  the  end  of  November.    Much  study  is  yet  required  before 
definite  recommendations  can  be  made  as  to  the  details  of  the  work.    The  estimates 
are  approximate  only,  but  are  believed  to  be  sufficient  to  cover  the  work  required. 
These  estimates  are  as  follows : 


Channel  from  Waterford  to  dam   $44,  000 

Lock,  dam,  and  piers   547, 100 

Clearing  river  bed  immediately  below  dam   106,  250 

Removal  of  old  lock  and  dam   79,  407 

Basin  below  lock   239, 270 

Improvement  between  head  of  Adams  Island  and  head  of  Breaker  Island.  1,  328,  882 
Improvement  from  head  of  Breaker  Island  to  deep  water  at  Hudson   2,  369,  695 


Total  4,714,604 

Engineering  and  contingencies,  10  per  cent   471, 460 


Grand  total   5, 186, 064 


Of  the  above,  the  estimated  cost  of  the  work  properly  chargeable  to  the  harbor  at 
Troy  is  $420,559;  that  for  the  harbor  at  Albany  is  $105,000. 

The  cost  of  the  work  estimated  for  Coeymans,  amounting  to  $9,200,  is  not  included 
in  the  above  figures. 

If  this  project  is  approved  and  the  work  authorized,  provision  should  be  made  for 
executing  the  work  under  continuing  contracts.  Unless  the  dredging  and  rock 
excavation  can  be  carried  on  under  a  large  contract,  it  is  probable  that  work  of  that 
character  above  and  below  the  dam  can  be  done  most  advantageously  separately, 
as  separate  plants  would  have  to  be  provided  on  account  of  the  difficulty  of  passing 
the  sloop  lock.  It  is  important  that  the  work  in  the  lock  and  dam  should  be  started 
at  the  earliest  practicable  date,  and  that  the  connecting  channel  between  the  new 
lock  and  the  existing  channel  below  should  be  started  in  time  to  permit  its  comple- 
tion immediately  after  the  new  lock  and  dam  are  built,  in  order  that  the  commerce 
through  the  canals  may  be  stopped  for  as  short  a  time  as  practicable.  The  sum  which 
can  be  expended  advantageously  in  the  coming  year  under  a  continuing  contract 
for  the  construction  of  a  lock  and  dam  is  $300,000.  The  entire  sum  should  be  made 
available  within  two  years  in  order  that  the  work  can  be  completed  within  three 
working  seasons. 

In  the  work  below  the  dam  $1,000,000  can  be  expended  advantageously  in  the 
next  working  season.  The  money  should  be  made  available  for  the  improvement  of 
the  Hudson  between  Waterford  and  New  York  Harbor. 

It  seems  clear  that  the  ultimate  extinguishment  by  the  State  of 
New  York  of  all  existing  water-power  rights  or  privileges  affected 
by  the  improvement  in  question,  through  the  abandonment  of  the 
said  dam  or  otherwise,  was  one  of  the  conditions  referred  to  by  Con- 
gress in  appropriating  for  the  work  in  question,  and  I  understand 
you  have  so  construed  the  act. 

The  resolution  of  the  canal  board  of  November  22,  1910,  in  regard  to 
the  cancellation  of  existing  water  rights  and  the  abandonment  of  said 
dam  and  lock,  as  appears  from  the  certified  copy  thereof  transmitted 
by  you,  reads  as  follows: 

Whereas  by  the  provisions  of  chapter  147  of  the  laws  of  1903,  and  the  acts  amendatory 
thereof  and  supplemental  thereto,  the  State  has  directed  the  improvement  of  that 
portion  of  the  canal  system  of  the  State  which  lies  in  the  thread  of  the  Hudson  River 
from  Congress  Street,  in  the  city  of  Troy,  to  Waterford;  and 

Whereas  in  the  carrying  out  of  that  improvement  so  directed  by  the  legislature  it  now 
is  apparent  that  the  existing  State  dam  and  lock  at  Troy  must  be  destroyed;  and 

Whereas  on  the  2d  day  of  January,  1832,  and  on  the  26th  day  of  November,  1835,  the 
people  of  the  State  of  New  York,  by  the  then  canal  commissioners,  executed  two 
leases,  the  first  to  the  Lansingburgh  Dry  Dock  &  Hydraulic  Co.  and  the  second  to 
one  George  Tibbits,  whereby  there  was  conveyed  to  said  parties  all  of  the  surplus 
water  created  by  the  said  Troy  dam  and  lock ;  and 

Whereas  in  both  of  said  leases  certain  rights  and  privileges  were  reserved  to  the  State 
by  the  following  clause,  incorporated  in  both  instruments:  (Here  follows  the  clause 
quoted  in  the  report  of  Col.  Black,  of  the  Corps  of  Engineers,  above  set  forth,  begin- 
ning with  the  words  ' '  saving  and  reserving' ' ) ;  and 


HUDSON  RIVEB,  NEW  TOEK. 


53 


Whereas  the  Hon.  Frederick  C.  Stevens,  superintendent  of  public  works,  as  successor 
to  the  said  canal  commissioners,  has  this  day  notified  this  board  that  in  his  opinion 
the  occupation  and  use  of  the  structures  by  whose  maintenance  the  surplus  water 
conveyed  by  said  leases  has  been  created  have  ceased  to  be  advantageous  to  the 
State,  and  by  virtue  of  the  authority  and  power  reserved  to  him,  as  successor  to  the 
canal  commissioners,  has  recommended  that  the  said  structures  be  wholly  aban- 
doned and  that  their  destruction  be  authorized  and  approved:  Now  be  it 
Resolved,  That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  board  that  the  whole  of  the  surplus  water 

created  by  said  dam  and  lock  is  now  necessary  for  the  use  of  the  canals  of  the  State  and 

the  works  connected  therewith,  authorized  and  directed  by  said  chapter  147  of  the 

laws  of  1903,  and  the  acts  amendatory  thereof  and  supplemental  thereto,  and  that  the 

said  surplus  water  be,  and  the  same  hereby  is,  wholly  resumed. 

And  be  it  further  resolved,  That  the  said  dam  and  lock,  by  the  construction  of  which 

the  said  surplus  water  has  been  created,  be,  and  the  same  hereby  are,  abandoned,  and 

the  destruction  thereof  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  authorized. 
And  be  it  further  resolved,  That  the  superintendent  of  public  works  be,  and  he  hereby 

is,  directed  to  serve  a  copy  of  this  resolution  upon  the  said  lessees,  their  sjuccessors  or 

assigns. 

It  further  appears  from  affidavits  transmitted  that  copies  of  this 
resokition  were  served  upon  the  lessees,  their  successors  or  assigns,  as 
directed  therein. 

As  stated  in  your  letter: 

Subsequent  to  the  passage  of  this  resolution  the  State  board  of  public  works  trans- 
mitted to  the  Secretary  of  War  a  copy  of  the  same  and  advised  him  that  possession 
might  be  taken  of  the  structures  at  any  time,  and  that  the  water  rights  at  either  end  of 
the  dam  had  been  canceled.  Thereupon  the  Engineer  Department  proceeded  with 
the  necessary  preliminary  operations,  involving  the  expendiutre  of  considerable  sums 
of  money,  and  entered  into  a  contract  for  dredging  and  rock  excavation  covering 
nearly  $300,000  worth  of  work,  to  be  commenced  during  the  present  month. 

In  my  opinion  the  State  canal  board,  assuming  that  the  existing 
water-power  rights  or  privileges  in  question  had  been  properly  ex- 
tinguished by  the  proceedings  indicated  in  its  resolution  of  November 
22,  1910,  could  not  by  attempting  to  rescind  such  action  after  it  had 
been  accepted  and  acted  upon  by  the  Federal  Government,  as  stated 
by  you,  prevent  the  act  of  Congress  authorizing  the  improvement 
01  the  river  from  becoming  operative.  The  conditions  specified  in 
the  act  of  Congress  as  to  the  extinguishment  of  such  rights  or  privi- 
leges having  been  met  it  was  beyond  the  power  of  the  State  there- 
after to  interfere  with  the  improvement  authorized,  in  view  of  the 
paramount  control  of  Congress  over  the  Hudson  River  as  a  navigable 
waterway  of  the  United  States. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  action  of  the  canal  board  purports  to 
have  been  taken  pursuant  to  chapter  147  of  the  laws  of  the  State  as 
amended,  directing  the  improvement  of  that  portion  of  the  State 
canal  system  which  lies  in  the  thread  of  the  Hudson  River  from 
Congress  Street  in  the  city  of  Troy  to  Waterford  (1  Consolidated 
Laws  of  New  York,  p.  521,  et  seq.),  and  which,  it  is  understood, 
includes  the  portion  of  the  river  covered  by  the  congressional  im- 
provement. 

The  Chief  of  Engineers  in  his  report  to  the  Secretary  of  War  of 
January  15,  1907,  in  regard  to  the  extension  of  the  then  existing 
project  for  the  improvement  of  the  Hudson  River  to  Waterford, 
said  (H.  Doc.  No.  539,  59th  Cong.,  2d  sess.) : 

Hudson  River  is  at  present  being  improved  by  the  United  States  under  a  project 
which  provides  for  securing  a  channel  depth  of  12  feet  up  to  the  State  dam  at  Troy. 
In  connection  with  this  dam  there  is  a  lock  operated  by  the  State  of  New  York,  which 
has  a  depth  of  less  than  5  feet  over  the  lower  miter  sill.  Above  the  dam  there  is  slack 
water  with  a  navigable  depth  of  about  10  feet  for  a  distance  of  2.6  miles  to  the  mouth 


54 


HUDSON  EIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


of  the  fourth  branch  of  the  Mohawk  River  at  Waterford,  at  which  point  there  is  at 
present  a  connection  with  the  Champlain  Canal,  and  where  the  barge  canal  being 
constructed  by  the  State  to  replace  the  old  Erie  Canal  will  leave  the  Hudson  River. 

The  improvement  now  proposed  is  the  extension  by  the  United  States  of  the  12-foot 
project  from  its  present  terminus  at  the  State  dam  to  the  town  of  Waterford .  The  works 
necessary  consist  of  a  new  lock  and  dam  to  replace  the  existing  State  structures  and  of 
certain  excavation  to  project  dimensions  both  above  and  below  the  dam.  In  his 
report  of  December  28,  1906,  Col.  Lockwood  presents  alternative  estimates  of  $934,900 
and  $1,124,100  as  the  cost  of  constructing  the  proposed  channel  on  the  east  and  west 
sides  of  the  river,  respectively. 

For  the  reasons  given  in  its  final  report  of  the  7th  instant,  also  herewith,  the  Board 
of  Engineers  for  Rivers  and  Harbors  concurs  in  the  opinion  of  the  district  officer  that 
the  locgition  of  the  new  channel  on  the  west  shore  of  the  river  has  advantages  in  its 
favor  sufficient  to  justify  its  selection,  even  at  the  estimated  additional  cost.  The 
board  believes  that  the  cost  of  this  improvement  is  reasonable  when  compared  with 
the  benefits  which  may  be  expected  to  result  therefrom  and  that  it  is  advisable  to 
extend  the  existing  project  in  accordance  with  the  plan  proposed. 

The  work  contemplated  in  these  reports  is  entirely  feasible  from  an  engineering 
standpoint.  It  forms  a  part  of  the  work  proposed  by  the  State  of  New  York  for  its 
enlarged  barge  canal  and  is  included  by  the  State  engineer  and  surveyor  in  his  esti- 
mate for  the  canal.  In  its  relation  to  the  New  York  barge  canal  it  is  in  a  position  which 
resembles,  in  a  certain  degree,  that  of  the  enlargement  of  Black  Rock  Harbor,  at  the 
other  end  of  the  canal.  This  enlargement  is  also  included  in  the  estimate  of  the 
State  engineer  and  surveyor  alluded  to  above.  In  both  cases  the  idea  is  expressed 
that  if  the  work  is  not  undertaken  by  the  United  States  Government  it  will  have  to 
be  done  by  the  State  of  New  York. 

By  the  amendment  to  chapter  147  of  the  laws  of  1903,  made  by 
chapter  494  of  the  laws  of  1907  (1  Consolidated  Laws  of  New  York^ 
p.  533),  the  legislature  has  provided  that — 

The  waters,  surplus  or  otherwise,  created  or  impounded  as  a  result  of  the  improve- 
ment of  the  Erie,  Champlain,  and  Oswego  Canals,  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  this 
act,  or  from  the  construction  of  any  dam  or  dams,  mole  or  moles,  reservoir  or  reser- 
voirs, or  other  structures  connected  therewith,  shall  not  be  leased,  sold,  or  otherwise 
disposed  of  until  the  improvement  of  said  canals  as  contemplated  in  this  act  and 
amendments  thereto  shall  have  been  finally  completed,  nor  thereafter  until  author- 
ized by  statute  setting  forth  specific  terms,  conditions,  and  restrictions  governing  the 
same. 

The  constitution  of  the  State  of  New  York,  section  8  of  article  7^ 
provides  that  ''the  legislature  shall  not  sell,  lease,  or  otherwise  dis- 
pose of  the  Erie  Canal,  *  *  *  but  they  (it)  shall  remain  the 
property  of  the  State  and  under  its  management  forever." 

The  fact  that  the  water  power  created  by  the  construction  of  a  new 
lock  and  dam  by  the  United  States  would  belong  to  the  United  States 
(Green  Bay  and  Mississippi  Canal  Co.  v.  Patten  Paper  Co.,  172  U.  S., 
58),  and  that  the  construction  of  the  new  lock  and  dam  by  the 
United  States  would  divest  the  State  of  jurisdiction  over  that  por- 
tion of  the  canal,  appear  to  have  actuated  the  State  canal  board  in 
attempting  to  rescind  its  resolution  of  November  22,  1910.  Thus, 
the  rescinding  resolution  of  April  28,  1911,  according  to  the  copy 
transmitted,  states: 

Whereas  it  is  the  policy  of  this  State  to  conserve  its  natural  resources  and  develop 
them  for  the  benefit  of  the  people;  and 

Whereas  it  may  be  claimed  that  the  above  resolution  may  interfere  with  such  policy 
and  permit  the  use  of  such  water  by  some  other  agency  than  the  State  and  may 
remove  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  State  of  New  York  an  integral  part  of  the  canal 
system  of  the  State,  and  it  being  considered  that  such  an  abandonment  is  neither 
expedient,  desirable,  nor  economical:  Therefore  be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  resolution  above  mentioned,  adopted  November  22,  1910,  be, 
and  the  same  is  hereby,  rescinded,     *    *  *. 

That  the  State  canal  board  had  authority  to  abandon  the  State 
lock  and  dam  and  authorize  their  destruction  in  furtherance  of  the 


HUDSOX  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


55 


improvement  authorized  by  the  State  would  seem  to  be  unquestioned. 
But  whetlier  it  could  do  so  in  anticipation  of  and  for  the  purpose  of 
giving  effect  to  the  improvement  authorized  by  Congress,  which  would 
result  in  Federal  control  over  that  portion  of  the  Hudson  occupied 
by  the  new  lock  and  dam,  and  used  as  a  portion  of  the  State  canal, 
is  uu/re  doubtful.  The  State  might  perhaps  do  it,  notwithstanding 
the  constitutional  provision  referred  to,  in  -\  iew  of  the  fact  that  this 
portion  of  the  canal  is  in  a  navigable  waterway  of  the  United  States, 
and  therefore  not  subject  to  absolute  ownership  by  the  State,  but 
necessarily  under  Federal  jurisdiction  whenever  Congress  chose  to 
exercise  it.  But  the  canal  board  does  not  possess  legislative  power 
and  can  only  do  tliat  which  it  is  authorized  by  the  legislature  to  do. 

The  action  indicated  in  the  resolution  of  the  canal  board  of  No- 
vember 22,  1910,  may,  however,  be  good  as  an  extinguishment  of 
the  existing  leases  and  a  resumption  of  the  surplus  water  created 
by  the  State  lock  and  dam,  although  not  as  an  abandonment  of  those 
structures.  The  condition  of  the  action  of  Congress  is  that  all 
existing  power  rights  and  privileges  affected  by  the  improvement 
authorized  be  extinguished.  This,  it  was  supposed,  would  be  effected 
by  the  abandonment  of  the  State  lock  and  dam  by  the  canal  board, 
but  if  otherwise  effected,  the  condition  would  be  substantially  met. 
The  idea  seems  to  have  been  to  reheve  the  Federal  Government  of 
any  possible  claim  for  damages  arising  out  of  the  destruction  of  the 
State  lock  and  dam.  The  fear  seems  to  have  been  an  idle  one,  in 
view  of  the  paramount  control  of  Congress  over  the  Hudson  River 
as  a  navigable  waterway  of  the  United  States,  and  the  fact  that  the 
rights  and  privileges  referred  to  were,  both  in  terms  and  as  a  matter 
of  constitutional  law,  dependent  upon  the  maintenance  of  the  State 
lock  and  dam,  which  Congress  could  declare  an  obstruction  to  navi- 
gation and  require  the  State  to  remove  it  at  its  own  expense.  (Mo- 
nongahela  Navigation  Co.  v.  The  United  States,  148  U.  S.,  312,  336; 
West  Chicago  Street  Railroad  Co.  v.  Chicago,  201  U.  S.,  506;  Union 
Bridge  Co.  v.  The  United  States,  204  U.  S.,  364;  Monongahela  Bridge 
Co.  V.  The  United  States,  216  U.  S.,  177.)  But  however  that  may 
be.  Congress  did  not  choose  to  exert  its  whole  power,  but  made  the 
expenditure  of  the  appropriation  for  the  improvement  authorized 
dependent  upon  the  extinguishment  by  the  State  of  the  power  rights 
or  privileges  affected  thereby. 

I  understand  that  you  do  not  wish  to  antagonize  the  State  au- 
thorities in  this  matter,  who  have  indicated  that  they  prefer  them- 
selves to  construct  that  part  of  the  proposed  improvement  which 
involves  the  construction  of  a  new  lock  and  dam  and  the  destruction 
of  the  present  lock  and  dam,  in  order  to  retain  jurisdiction  and  con- 
trol over  the  same  in  the  State;  that  your  purpose  is  to  submit  this 
matter  to  Congress,  and  that  you  are  now  concerned  only  with  the 
vahdity  of  the  contracts  which  have  been  let  for  the  construction  of 
the  work  involved  in  the  improvement  authorized  not  dependent 
upon  the  construction  of  the  new  lock  and  dam  or  the  destruction  of 
the  State  lock  and  dam,  and  the  legality  of  the  expenditures  already 
made,  these  contracts  and  the  expenditures  having  been  made  upon 
the  faith  of  the  action  taken  by  the  State  canal  board  in  its  resolu- 
tion of  November  22,  1910. 

Under  the  circumstances  stated,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
action  indicated  in  the  resolution  of  the  State  canal  board  of  Novem- 


56 


HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


ber  22,  1910,  was  accepted  and  acted  upon  by  you  as  a  sufficient 
compliance  with  the  terms  of  the  act  of  Congress  authorizing  the 
improvement  in  question;  that  this  was  a  matter  primarily  for  you  to 
determine,  and  that  the  insufficiency  of  such  action  to  extinguish 
the  existing  power  rights  and  privileges  affected  by  the  improvement 
is  not  clearly  apparent,  I  thiuK  that  the  action  taken  by  you  should 
be  upheld,  notwithstanding  the  attempt  of  the  canal  board  to  re- 
scind that  resolution,  and  that  you  are  justified  in  making  such  fur- 
ther expenditures  under  said  appropriation  as  the  interests  of  the 
United  States  in  the  premises  seem  to  require. 

What  has  been  said  renders  it  unnecessary  to  reply  categorically 
to  the  questions  submitted. 
Respectfully, 

George  W.  Wickersham. 

The  Secretary  of  War. 


Huntington,  Long  Island,  N.  Y.,  September  IS,  191 L 
Memorandum  for  the  Chief  of  Engineers : 

1.  I  approve  of  so  much  of  the  report  of  the  Acting  Chief  of  Engi- 
neers dated  July  20,  1911,  as  recommends: 

That  so  much  of  the  work  of  rock  excavation  and  dredging  to  secure  the  project 
depth  and  width  of  channel  from  deep  water  in  the  lower  river  up  to  Waterford  as  is  not 
dependent  upon  the  construction  of  the  new  lock  and  dam  or  the  destruction  of  the 
existing  structures,  be  continued  and  carried  forward  as  the  interests  of  the  United 
States  may  require. 

And  I  direct  that  such  work  be  proceeded  with  at  once. 

2.  The  work  on  that  portion  of  the  project  which  involves  the  con- 
struction of  a  new  lock  and  dam  to  replace  the  existing  State  structures, 
should  be  postponed  until  I  shall  have  further  time  to  determine 
whether  to  adoi)t  the  recommendation  of  the  Acting  Chief  of  Engi- 
neers and  submit  the  matter  to  Congress,  or  proceed  with  the  work 
as  originally  authorized,  on  the  assumption  that  the  action  of  the 
State  canal  board  of  April  28, 1911,  was  void  and  ineffective.  On  this 
question  I  have  asked  the  Judge  Advocate  General  and  the  law  officer 
of  the  Insular  Bureau  to  prepare  me  opinions. 

3.  I  have  written  to  the  authorities  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
notifying  them  of  the  substance  of  this  memorandum. 

Henry  L.  Stimson, 

Secretary  of  War. 


New  York  Board  of  Trade  and  Transportation, 

New  York,  September  12,  1911, 

Hon.  Henry  L.  Stimson, 

Secretary  of  War,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Dear  Sir:  By  direction  of  the  executive  committee  of  the  Barge 
Canal  Terminal  Conference,  I  have  the  honor  to  hand  you  herewith 
a  copy  of  preamble  and  resolution  adopted  by  it  at  a  special  meeting 
held  in  New  York  City  on  Friday  last,  the  8th  instant. 
Very  respectfully, 

Frank  S.  Gardner, 
Secretary  of  Executive  Committee, 
Barge  Canal  Terminal  Conference. 


\ 


HUDSON  KIVER,  NEW  YOBK. 


57 


RESOLUTION 

Unanimously  adopted  by  the  executive  committee  of  the  Barge 
Canal  Terminal  Conference  at  a  meeting  held  September  8,  1911: 

Whereas  the  present  depth  of  the  channels  of  the  upper  Hudson 
River  is  insufficient  to  admit  of  the  passage  of  canal  barges  which 
will  navigate  the  improved  barge  canal  of  tliis  State  when  the 
same  shall  have  been  completed,  and  the  General  Government 
has  made  an  appropriation  for  the  necessary  improvement  of  the 
Hudson  River;  and 

Whereas  Congress  imposed  the  condition  that  the  appropriation  for 
the  improvement  of  the  Hudson  River  should  not  be  available 
until  the  then  existing  leases  of  the  surplus  waters  available  for 
power  at  the  State  dam  at  Troy  should  have  been  terminated;  and 

Whereas  the  canal  board  of  the  State  of  New  York,  on  the  22d  day 
of  November,  1910,  by  a  resolution  formally  adopted,  terminated 
the  said  leases,  thereby  complying  with  the  conditions  imposed  by 
Congress;  and 

Whereas  their  successsors,  the  canal  board  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
on  the  26th  day  of  April,  1911,  by  a  resolution  rescinded  the  reso- 
lution of  November  22,  1910,  and  thereupon  the  work  of  improve- 
ment of  the  Hudson  River  which  was  about  to  be  commenced  was 
postponed  by  the  War  Department  pending  a  decision  of  the 
questions  raised  by  the  action  of  the  canal  board  of  April  26,  1911, 
and  no  work  upon  said  improvement  has  yet  been  done;  and 

Whereas  such  delay  of  the  improvement  of  the  river  threatens  an 
indefinite  postponement  which  would  prevent  the  passage  of  boats 
from  the  barge  canal  to  the  Hudson  River  and  render  such  canal 
improvement  of  practically  no  avail  to  the  State ;  and 

Whereas  the  honorable  Secretary  of  War  referred  to  the  honorable 
Attorney  General  of  the  United  States,  for  his  opinion,  the  con- 
troversy thus  raised,  and  it  is  understood  that  the  Attorney 
General  of  the  United  States  has  expressed  his  opinion  in  effect 
that  the  action  of  the  canal  board  taken  April  26,  1911,  was  of  no 
'effect,  and  that  the  State  of  New  York  could  not  interfere  in  any 
manner  in  the  prq^edure.  Therefore, 

Resolved,  That  in  our  opinion  the  Secretary  of  War  should  imme- 
diately commence  work  upon  the  improvement  of  the  upper  Hudson 
River  as  provided  for  by  Congress,  and  we  earnestly  petition  the 
Secretary  of  War  to  immediately  take  steps  for  the  prosecution  of 
such  work. 

A  true  copy. 

Frank  S.  Gardner,  Secretary. 

Members  of  executive  committee  Barge  Canal  Terminal  Conference : 
George  Clinton,  Buffalo,  chairman;  Lewis  Nixon,  New  York;  William 
J.  Roche,  Troy:  Henry  W.  Hill,  Buffalo:  Frederick  W.  Cameron, 
Albany;  John  D.  Kernan,  Utica;  Charles  E.  Reid,  New  York; 
Howard  D.  Hadley,  Plattsburg;  E.  R.  Carhart,  New  York;  Frank 
S.  Gardner,  New  York;  A.  R.  Kessinger,  Rome;  Nelson  B.  Killmer, 
Brookl3m. 


58 


HUDSON  EIVER,  NEW  YORK, 


Customhouse, 
New  York,  September  13,  1911. 

My  Dear  Mr.  Secretary:  I  do  not  know  whether,  in  the  muUitude 
of  matters  you  have  to  handle,  the  situation  set  forth  in  the  inclosed 
copy  of  resolutions  of  the  barge  canal  terminal  conference  and  news- 
paper clipping  attached  has  come  to  your  personal  knowledge,  and  in 
view  of  the  importance  of  the  matter,  I  take  the  liberty  of  bringing 
it  to  your  notice  because  of  the  feature  pointed  out  that  delay  in  this 
matter  is  not  only  very  serious  as  regards  the  approach  of  the  early 
use  of  the  New  York  State  barge  canal  system,  but  is  also  preventing 
much-needed  action  in  the  improvement  of  the  upper  Hudson,  there 
being  at  present  a  number  of  places  between  New  Baltimore  and 
Albany  where  there  is  less  than  9 J  feet  of  water  at  low  tide  and  with 
strong  northwesterly  winds.  Moreover,  in  some  of  these  places  the 
channels  are  less  than  150  feet  in  width  and  the  navigation  of  the  upper 
river  at  the  present  time  is  very  seriously  impeded.  I  know  some- 
thing about  the  situation  because  I  still  keep  my  interest  in  Albany, 
where  I  have  lived  all  my  life.  If  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral is  correct,  that  the  action  of  the  canal  board  taken  April  26,  1911^ 
was  of  no  effect  and  that  the  State  of  New  York  could  not  interfere 
in  any  manner  in  the  procedure,  are  you  not  in  a  position  where 
you  can  cause  action  to  be  taken  ? 

I  hope  you  are  well  and  enjoying  the  duties  of  your  position. 
Sincerely,  yours, - 

Wm.  Loeb,  Jr. 

Hon.  Henry  L.  Stimson, 

Secretarij  of  War,  WasJiington,  D.  C. 


[Second  indorsement.] 

United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  York,  N.  Y.,  October  17,  1911. 

1.  Respectfully  returned  to  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  United  States 
Armv,  the  necessary  record  having  been  made.  . 

,  W.  M.  Black, 
Colonel,  ^orps  of  Engineers. 


Peculiar,  This  Action. 

it  looks  unbusinesslike  at  the  very  least  broken  faith  is  alleged — dix- 

murphy  canal  board  rescinds  contract  with  federal  government,  post- 
poned deepening  of  upper  hudson,  and  delayed  opening  of  new  barge 
canal  system. 

Albany,  N.  Y.,  September  5. 

.  It  is  a  serious  thing  to  say,  but  the  truth  is  that  the  State  administration,  as  a  con- 
eequence  of  the  hasty  and  ill-advised  action  of  the  canal  board,  has  postponed  for 
probably  a  year  the  use  of  the  improved  Champlain  Canal  and  cast  doubt  upon  the 
date  of  the  opening  of  the  improved  Oswego  and  Erie  Canals,  upon  which  the  State 
is  expending  $108,000,000  in  order  to  permanently  reduce  transportation  charges. 
The  State  has  broken  faith  with  the  United  States  Government,  has  caused  an  indefi- 
nite postponement  of  the  expenditure  of  $5,186,084  for  the  deepening  of  the  upper 
Hudson,  about  to  be  begun,  and  has  thrown  upon  the  taxpayers  of  the  State  an  unnec- 
essary expenditure  of  over  $1,000,000  that  the  United  States  had  assumed.  And  for 
what  reason?    Chiefly  to  enable  the  State  to  retain  its  right  to  a  surplus  water  power, 


HUDSON  KIVER,  NEW  YOEK. 


59^ 


the  lease  of  which  has  never  yielded  it  more  than  $600  in  any  year.  Under  the  new 
conditions  the  surplus  water  could  not  possibly  yield  the  State  enough  revenue  to 
reimburse  it  for  the  expense  of  constructing  the  dam,  the  locks,  and  other  necessary 
structures. 

Parts  of  the  upper  Hudson  have  now  a  depth  of  less  than  10  feet.  The  improved 
canals  will  have  12  feet  depth.  The  $5,186,084  appropriation  is  intended  to  deepen 
the  upper  Hudson  to  the  12-foot  depth  of  the  canals  throughout  and  to  build  the 
new  locks  and  dam.  In  doing  this  the  Federal  Government  reserves  to  itself  the 
control  of  the  surplus  waters  and  the  revenue  derived  therefrom. 

Ten  years  ago  the  hope  was  expressed  that  the  United  States  might  be  induced  to 
build  the  dam  and  locks  above  Troy,  and  previous  State  administrations  did  all 
possible  to  persuade  the  United  States  to  do  this  work  at  its  own  expense,  with  the 
result  that  the  river  and  harbor  act  of  1910  so  provided.  It  became  necessary  for  the 
State  to  formally  abandon  the  present  dam  and  lock  in  order  to  terminate  a  lease  of 
the  surplus  water  for  many  years  enjoyed  by  a  hydraulic  company,  so  as  to  allow  the 
United  States  right  of  way  to  build  the  new  works. 

Last  fall  the  previous  canal  board  abandoned  the  existing  dam  and  locks  and  author- 
ized their  destruction,  in  strict  conformity  Nvith  the  agreement.  Then  the  present 
canal  board  late  in  April  rescinds  the  action  of  the  previous  board,  with  the  approval 
of  the  attorney  general  and  Gov.  Dix. 

State  Engineer  Bensel  suggested  this  action  to  the  canal  board  on  one  day  and  on  the 
next  day  the  board  approved. 

It  made  no  effort  to  get  in  touch  with  the  United  States  authorities  to  ascertain  if 
any  adjustment  of  the  matter  of  the  surplus  water  was  possible.  It  did  not  seek  to 
learn  what  effect  the  adoption  of  Mr.  Bensel's  suggestion  would  have  upon  the  prose- 
cution of  the  other  work  upon  which  the  United  States  was  about  to  proceed.  And 
yet  Mr.  Bensel  must  have  known  that  the  upper  Hudson  improvement  is  urgently 
needed  by  boats  navigating  that  part  of  the  river,  besides  which  such  improvement  is 
essential  to  the  economical  use  of  the  new  canals  by  the  barges  that  will  navigate 
them.  Gov.  Dix  merely  informed  the  Secretary  of  War  of  the  action  of  the  canal  board 
and  inclosed  a  copy  of  its  resolution  rescinding  the  action  of  the  previous  board. 

The  Army  engineers  in  charge  of  the  work  are  all  ready  now  to  let  contracts  under 
the  $5,186,084  appropriation.  They  say  the  work  would  begin  early  in  1912,  but  that 
it  would  take  two  or  three  years  to  complete  it.  The  new  Champlain  Canal  is  to  be 
ready  in  the  spring  of  1913,  the  Oswego  ('anal  and  that  ])art  of  the  Erie  that  connects 
the  Oswego  with  the  Hudson  is  to  be  opened  early  in  1914,  and  the  remainder  of  the 
new  Erie  Canal  is  to  be  ready  at  the  opening  of  navigation  in  1915.  So  that  the  bes 
possible  connection  of  the  new  Champlain  Canal  with  the  deepened  Hudson  via  the 
new  Troy  locks  will  be  in  1914,  a  year  after  that  canal  will  be  ready  for  use.  But  with 
the  Federal  work  held  up,  its  resumption  indefinitely  postponed  and  possibly  depen- 
dent upon  new  congressional  legislation,  there  is  no  telling  when  it  will  be  finished. 
If  the  State  builds  the  dam  and  locks,  it  must  select  a  site,  and  then  prepare  plans 
and  specifications.  This  would  probably  postpone  letting  the  contracts  until  next 
year  and  the  undertaking  of  the  work  much  later  than  if  the  United  States  commenced 
now.  There  appears  no  valid  reason  for  the  action  of  the  present  canal  board  in  causing 
this  delav  and  doubt  and  saddling  the  State  with  this  unnecessarv  expenditure  of 
over  $1,000,000. 

As  everyone  knows,  the  railroads  have  bitterly  opposed  the  enlargement  of  the 
canals,  fearing  a  reduction  in  their  revenues  through  the  reduction  in  their  rates  that 
will  be  necessary  to  enable  them  to  compete  with  the  canals.  Nothing  could  better 
suit  these  railroads  than  to  have  the  time  set  for  the  opening  of  the  improved  canals 
indefinitely  postponed,  as  that  would  give  them  just  so  much  more  time  in  which  to 
maintain  their  present  high  rates  that  are  so  restrictive  of  profitable  manufacturing  in 
this  State.    But  just  that  is  what  the  State  administration  has  accomplished. 

However  the  people  may  feel  if  thwarted  in  their  hopes  of  low  freight  rates  at  an 
early  date  because  of  the  shortsighted  and  most  singular  action  of  the  present  admin- 
istration, the  railroads  are  certainly  under  lasting  obligations  to  it. 


60 


HUDSON  EIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


RESOLUTIONS 

Unanimously  adopted  by  the  executive  committee  of  the  Barge 
Canal  Terminal  Conference  at  a  meeting  held  September  8,  1911 : 

Whereas  the  present  depth  of  the  channels  of  the  upper  Hudson  River 
is  insufficient  to  admit  of  the  passage  of  canal  barges  which  will 
riavigate  the  improved  barge  canal  of  this  State  when  the  same  shall 
have  been  completed  and  the  General  Government  has  made  an 
appropriation  for  the  necessary  improvement  of  the  Hudson  River; 
and 

Whereas  Congress  imposed  the  condition  that  the  appropriation  for 
the  improvement  of  the  Hudson  River  should  not  be  available  until 
the  then  existing  leases  of  the  surplus  waters  available  for  power  at 
the  State  dam  at  Troy  should  have  been  terminated;  and 

Whereas  the  canal  board  of  the  State  of  New  York,  on  the  22d  day  of 
November,  1910,  by  a  resolution  formally  adopted,  terminated  the 
said  leases,  thereby  complying  with  the  conditions  imposed  by  Con- 
gress; and 

Whereas  their  successors,  the  canal  board  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
on  the  26th  day  of  April,  1911,  by  a  resolution  rescinded  the  reso- 
lution of  November  22,  1910,  and  thereupon  the  work  of  improve- 
ment of  the  Hudson  River  which  was  about  to  b€f  commenced  was 
postponed  by  the  War  Department  pending  a  decision  of  the  ques- 
tions raised  by  the  action  of  the  canal  board  of  April  26,  1911,  and 
no  work  upon  said  improvement  has  yet  been  done;  and 

Whereas  such  delay  of  the  improvement  of  the  river  threatens  an 
indefinite  postponement,  which  would  prevent  the  passage  of  boats 
from  the  barge  canal  to  the  Hudson  River  and  render  such  canal 
improvement  of  practically  no  avail  to  the  State;  and 

Whereas  the  honorable  Secretary  of  War  referred  to  the  honorable 
Attorney  General  of  the  United  States  for  his  opinion  the  contro- 
versy thus  raised,  and  it  is  understood  that  the  Attorney  General  of 
the  United  States  has  expressed  his  opinion  in  effect  that  the  action 
of  the  canal  board  taken  April  26,  1911,  was  of  no  effect,  and  that 
the  State  of  New  York  could  not  interfere  in  any  manner  in  the 
procedure:  Therefore, 

Resolved,  That  in  our  opinion  the  Secretary  of  War  should  imme- 
diately commence  work  upon  the  improvement  of  the  upper  Hudson 
River  as  provided  for  by  Congress,  and  we  earnestly  petition  the  Sec- 
retary of  War  to  iminediately  take  steps  for  the  prosecution  of  such 
work. 

A  true  copy. 

Frank  S.  Gardner,  Secretary, 


Huntington,  Long  Island,  N.  Y.,  September  16,  1911. 

Hon.  William  Loeb,  Jr., 

Collector's  Office,  Customhouse,  New  YorTc,  N.  Y. 

My  Dear  Mr.  Collector:  I  have  your  letter  of  September  13  in 
reference  to  the  Troy  Dam  situation.  I  have  already  directed  the 
Chief  of  Engineers  to  proceed  with  so  much  of  the  work  of  improving 
the  Hudson  River  as  is  not  dependent  upon  the  question  of  the 


HUDSON  KIVEK,  NEW  YOKK. 


61 


destruction  and  replacement  of  the  existing  State  dam.  This  latter 
question  I  shall  have  to  reserve  for  further  investigation  and  nego- 
tiation. The  situation  is  not  so  easy  and  simple  as  the  Barge  Canal 
Terminal  Conference  people  seem  to  think,  nor  is  it  so  completely 
solved  by  the  Attorney  General's  opinion  as  they  apparently  believe. 
By  going  ahead  with  the  rest  of  the  work,  however,  I  hope  to  mini- 
mize the  unavoidable  delay  which  has  been  caused  by  the  change  of 
policy  of  the  State  authorities.  You  may  rest  assured  that  I  appre- 
ciate the  importance  of  the  case  and  that  I  will  push  it  ahead  as  fast 
as  possible.  But  it  is  not  quite  fair  to  lay  on  my  shoulders  the  blame 
for  the  delay  which  has  been  caused  by  the  change  of  mind  of  the 
people  up  at  Albany. 

Very  sincerely,  yours,  Henry  L.  Stimson. 


Huntington,  Long  Island,  N.  Y.,  September  15,  1911. 

Hon.  John  A.  Dix, 

Governor  of  New  Yorlc,  Albany,  N.  Y. 

Sm:  Referring  to  the  former  correspondence  between  yourself  and 
the  War  Department  with  reference  to  the  improvement  of  the  Hud- 
son River  under  the  appropriation  made  by  the  act  of  June  25,  1910, 
I  have,  in  reliance  upon  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney  General  of  the 
United  States,  directed  the  Chief  of  Engineers  to  proceed  at  once 
with  so  much  of  the  work  of  rock  excavation  and  dredging  to  secure 
the  project  depth  and  width  of  channel  from  deep  water  in  the  lower 
river  up  to  Waterford  as  is  not  dependent  upon  the  construction  of 
the  new  lock  and  dam  or  the  destruction  of  the  existing  structures. 

As  to  the  remainder  of  the  work,  namely,  that  which  involves  the 
construction  of  a  new  lock  and  dam  to  replace  the  existing  State 
structures,  I  have  not  yet  determined  what  action  I  shall  take.  I 
am  having  a  further  examination  made  with  a  view  to  settling  in  my 
own  mind  more  fully  the  respective  rights  and  duties  of  the  various 
parties  concerned,  and  as  soon  as  that  examination  is  completed  I  will 
communicate  again  with  you. 

Very  respectfully,  Henry  L.  Stimson, 

Secretary  of  War. 


War  Department, 
Office  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers, 

Washington,  October  28,  1911. 

Col.  W.  M.  Black, 

Corps  of  Engineers,  New  Yorlc,  N.  Y. 

Colonel:  It  is  requested  that  if  there  is  any  correspondence  on  file 
in  your  office  relative  to  the  recently  adopted  project  for  improve- 
ment of  Hudson  River  that  shows  that  prior  to  its  adoption  by  Con- 
gress the  authorities  of  the  State  of  New  York  were  favorable  to  the 
provision  relating  to  the  abandonment  of  tlie  State  lock  and  dam  and 
the  extinguishment  of  all  existing  water  rights  or  privileges  or  that 
the  action  of  Congress  was  influenced  by  the  advocation  of  their  rep- 
resentatives in  that  body,  you  forward  same  to  this  office. 

By  command  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers: 

Very  respectfully,  E.  N.  Johnston, 

Captain,  Corps  of  Engineers. 


62 


HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


War  Department, 
United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  York  City,  November  6,  1911. 
The  Chief  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

General:  In  compliance  with  department  letter  of  October  23, 
1911,  E.  D.  7771,  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  the  following  extracts 
from  the  records  of  this  office  relative  to  the  recently  adopted  project 
for  the  improvement  of  the  Hudson  River,  showing  that  prior  to  its 
adoption  by  Congress  the  authorities  of  the  State  of  New  York  were 
favorable  to  the  provision  relating  to  the  abandonment  of  the  State 
lock  and  dam  and  the  extinguishment  of  all  existing  water  rights  or 
privileges  or  that  the  action  of  Congress  was  influenced  by  the  advo- 
cation of  their  representatives  in  that  body.  The  actual  correspond- 
ence in  this  office  relating  to  the  above  is  very  meager,  the  agitation 
for  the  improvement  of  the  reach  between  Troy  and  Waterford  by 
the  United  States  apparently  having  been  carried  on  independently  of 
the  office. 

2.  The  present  project  was  adopted  in  the  act  of  June  25,  1910,  as 
the  result  of  a  report  on  preliminary  examination  ordered  in  the  act 
approved  March  3,  1909.  In  the  act  of  March  3,  1905,  Congress 
ordered  a  preliminary  examination  of  the  Hudson  River  with  a  view 
to  extending  the  existing  project  to  Waterford.  The  report  on  this, 
submitted  under  date  of  January  19,  1907,  is  favorable  to  the  project 
and  provides  for  the  substitution  of  a  new  dam  built  by  the  United 
States  for  the  present  State  dam  at  Troy.  In  this  report  no  mention 
is  found  of  the  then  existing  leases  made  by  the  State  for  the  use  of 
surplus  water,  though  to  provide  for  the  adoption  of  the  project  by 
the  United  States  the  State  dam  would  necessarily  have  to  be  aban- 
doned, carrying  with  it  extinguishment  of  the  leases.  While  no  corre- 
spondence has  been  found  on  file  relating  to  this  project,  from  a  letter 
dated  April  2,  1906,  signed  by  Hon.  Henry  A.  Van  Alstyne,  State 
engineer  and  surveyor,  it  would  appear  that  there  had  been  confer- 
ences on  the  matter  between  the  United  States  engineers  and  the 
representatives  of  the  State.  A  copy  of  the  letter  is  herewith  marked 
''A."  Though  the  correspondence  files  of  this  office  show  no  record 
of  the  action  of  the  State  officials,  it  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge 
that  such  action  has  been  taken.  It  is  respectfully  suggested  that 
Maj.  J.  B.  Cavanaugh,  lately  assistant  in  the  Office  of  the  Chief  of 
Engineers,  in  charge  of  the  river. and  harbor  division,  could  testify 
as  to  this. 

3.  In  the  official  State  publications  in  this  office  there  are  numer- 
ous allusions  to  this  subject,  as  shown  by  the  following  extracts: 

In  the  report  on  the  barge  canal  by  Hon.  Edward  A.  Bond,  State 
engineer  and  surveyor,  1901,  entitled  "State  of  New  York,  Report 
on  the  Barge  Canal  from  the  Hudson  River  to  the  Great  Lakes, 
February  12,  1901,"  page  28,  third  paragraph: 

IMPROVEMENTS  BY  UNITED  STATES  GOVERNMENT, 

The  river  and  harbor  bill,  which  has  passed  the  House  of  Representatives,  contains 
an  item  authorizing  a  survey  and  estimate  to  be  made  for  the  improvement  of  the 
Hudson  River  between  the  Troy  dam  and  Waterford.  It  is  believed  that  this  bill 
will  become  a  law  before  March  4,  1901. 


HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


63 


On  page  29  there  is  a  reference  to  the  Government  doing  the  work 
at  Black  Rock  Harbor  as  has  subsequently  been  carried  out.  The 
final  paragraph  of  this  reference  states: 

This  will  render  unnecessary  anv  work  bv  the  State  on  the  portion  of  the  Erie  Canal 
between  Fort  Porter  and  the'  sloop  lock,  and  in  fact  render  unnecessary  any  work 
between  Tonawanda  and  Buffalo,  it  being  understood  that  the  present  canal  will  be 
retained  as  a  feeder. 

On  page  52  is  found  Table  A,  giving  the  estimated  cost  of  barge 
canal.    At  the  foot  of  this  table  is  the  following: 

Improving  Hudson  River,  Troy  to  Waterford   ^lol' 

Improving  Black  Rock  Harbor  to  Buffalo   538,  051 

1,  275,  734 

It  is  believed  that  the  United  States  Government  will  do  this  work.  If  not,  this 
amount  should  be  added  to  the  above  totals. 

On  page  86,  being  a  report  of  the  consulting  engineers,  the  fourth 

paragraph  reads  as  follows: 

It  is  expected  that  the  work  in  the  Hudson  River  between  Troy  and  Waterford  will 
be  performed  by  the  United  States  Government  and  in  the  final  estimate  this  quan- 
tity is  not  included. 

On  page  271: 

DETAIL  ESTIMATES,  BY  ROUTES. 

Route  No.  lA  (the  estimate  for  the  barge  canal  does  not  include  this  improvement, 
being  expected  to  be  performed  by  the  United  States  Government).— 4  miles.  From 
Congress  Street  Bridge,  Troy,  to  mouth  of  Fourth  Branch  of  Mohawk  River  via  Hud- 
son River.    *   *  * 

On  page  592  an  extract  from  the  ''Minutes  of  the  sixth  meeting  of 
the  board  of  advisory  engineers  of  the  canal  survey,  under  chapter 
411  of  the  laws  of  1900,  held  on  January  9  and  10,  1901,"  reads  as 
follows : 

Improvement  by  United  States  Government.  The  following  motion  was  offered 
and  passed  bv  the  board,  Mr.  Alfred  Noble  not  voting: 

"This  board  believes  that  it  is  safe  to  assume  that  the  United  States  Government 
will  make  all  necessary  improvements  in  the  Niagara  River  from  Lake  Erie  to  Tona- 
wanda and  of  the  Hudson  River  up  to  the  mouth  of  the  canal  at  Waterford  required 
for  the  full  completion  of  the  barge  waterway,  and  that  the  estimate  of  the  cost  of  the 
State  work  can  be  limited  to  the  canal  between  these  terminal  points." 

4.  In  the  report  of  the  State  engineer  and  surveyor,  Hon.  Henry  A. 
Van  Alstvne,  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  September  30,  1905,  on  pages 
35  to  45^^  inclusive,  there  is 'an  argument  under  the  heading  "The 
canahzation  of  the  Hudson  River  between  Troy  and  Northumber- 
land," presented  by  the  State  engineer,  from  which  the  following 
extracts  may  be  taken: 

No  extensive  surveys  have  been  made  between  the  Congress  Street  Bridge  at  Troy, 
:N\  Y.,  and  Northumberland  on  the  Hudson  River,  or  between  Lake  Erie  and  Tona- 
wanda on  the  Niagara  River,  as  it  is  hoped  that  the  United  States  Government  will 
improve  these  rivers.    *    *   *  .         i  •  i.      v    •  j 

The  last  United  States  river  and  harbor  bill  contained  also  an  item  which  authorized 
the  Chief  of  Engineers  to  make  a  survey  and  estimate  of  cost  for  improving  the  Hudson 
River  between  the  Congress  Street  Bridge  at  Troy  and  the  eastern  terminus  of  the 
barge  canal  at  Waterford.  The  Secretary  of  War  and  the  Chief  of  Engineers  of  the 
United  States  Army  have  been  requested  by  the  State  engineer  to  hasten  as  much  as 
possible  the  work  authorized  bv  the  river  and  harbor  bill  at  these  two  places.    *  * 

New  York  asks  for  this  help  in  connection  with  a  department  of  the  United  States 
administration  which  has  been  favored  with  notably  small  appropriations.    *    *  * 


64 


HUDSON  KIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


Will  the  Congress  consider  what  would  have  been  lost  to  the  United  States  had  not 
the  New  York  canals  been  constructed?  Will  that  distinguished  body  reflect  what 
assured  national  benefits  would  have  been  impugned  had  the  State  government  and 
the  people  lately  yielded  to  the  clamor  of  many  who  urged  the  abandonment  rather 
than  the  renovation  of  the  system  and  the  expenditure  of  another  hundred  million  of 
dollars?  And  will  it  refuse  the  well-deserved  assistance,  because,  forsooth,  it  knows 
the  community  has  energetically  made  up  its  mind  to  prosecute  this  beneficent  inter- 
national undertaking,  even  though  it  should  have  to  stagger  under  the  weight  of  other 
men's  burdens? 

5.  In  the  report  of  the  State  engineer  and  surveyor,  Hon.  Frederick 
Skene,  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  September  30,  1907,  under  the  head 
of  ''Aid  by  the  United  States  Government,"  on  page  10,  the  following 
appears : 

One  portion  of  the  work,  which  was  included  in  the  original  estimate,  has  not  been 
planned  for,  inasmuch  as  it  is  hoped  that  the  United  States  Government  will  undertake 
this  part.  This  is  the  canalization  of  the  Hudson  between  Congress  Street  Bridge  at 
Troy  and  Waterford.  Surveys  have  been  made  by  the  United  States  Engineers,  but 
Congress  has  not  yet  acted  upon  their  report.  It  is  anticipated  that  the  next  river  and 
harbor  bill  will  contain  an  appropriation  for  this  work. 

On  page  73,  under  the  head  "Erie  Canal  Residency  No.  1,"  .there 
is  stated : 

This  residency  extends  from  Congress  Street  Bridge  at  Troy  to  the  west  end  of  the 
lower  Mohawk  Aqueduct  at  Crescent.  *  *  *  No  surveys  have  been  made  or  con- 
struction work  done  on  the  lower  portion  of  this  residency  from  the  Congress  Street 
Bridge  to  Waterford,  as  it  has  been  expected  that  the  United  States  Government 
would  undertake  this  portion  of  the  improvement.    *   ^  * 

6.  In  the  report  of  the  State  engineer  and  surveyor,  Hon.  Frank  M. 
Williams,  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  September  30,  1908,  on  page  12, 
is  the  report  on  Federal  aid  for  canalizing  the  Hudson,"  from  which 
the  following  is  an  extract : 

In  my  annual  report  of  a  year  ago  I  stated  that  one  portion  of  the  work  which  was 
included  in  the  original  estimate  had  not  been  planned  for,  inasmuch  as  it  was  hoped 
that  the  National  Government  would  undertake  this  part — the  canalization  of  the 
Hudson  between  Congress  Street  Bridge,  Troy,  and  Waterford  *  *  *  During  the 
past  year,  however,  I  have  taken  steps  to  place  this  matter  more  clearly  before  the 
Rivers  and  Harbors  Committee  of  Congress,  and  I  trust  that  before  long  this  action 
may  be  rewarded  by  the  giving  of  Government  aid.  I  prepared  a  memorial  to  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States,  asking  for  this  Federal  assistance,  setting  forth,  in  what 
seems  to  me  many  almost  unanswerable  arguments  the  reasons  for  seeking  this  help. 
In  his  annual  message  to  the  legislature  of  1905  the  governor  called  attention  to  the 
fact  that  New  York's  share  of  the  amount  appropriat-ed  for  rivers  and  harbors  was  but 
a  trifle  compared  with  the  percentage  which  our  commerce  bears  to  the  whole  commerce 
of  the  United  States,  and  he  suggested  that  our  Representatives  in  Congress  be  re- 
quested to  press  the  claims  of  the  State  for  larger  appropriations.  *  *  ^  To  gain 
the  added  strength  of  cooperation  I  have  joined  forces  with  these  State  and  national 
associations,  thus  hoping  to  obtain  a  proper  outlet  from  the  present  terminus  of  the 
barge  canal  at  Waterford  to  the  port  of  New  York. 

On  page  14  of  the  report,  under  the  head  of  ''Recommendations/' 
is  the  following: 

It  is  recommended  that  the  legislature  cooperate  with  this  department  in  further 
endeavors  to  induce  Congress  to  make  appropriation  for  the  work  of  canalizing  the 
Hudson  River  from  Troy  to  Waterford. 

7.  In  the  report  of  the  State  engineer  and  surveyor,  Hon.  Frank  M. 
Williams,  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  September  30,  1909,  under  the 
heading  ''Hudson  River,  Troy  to  Waterford,"  on  page  12,  is  an  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  Federal  aid,  from  which  the  following  extracts  are 
taken : 

It  is  imperative  that  no  time  be  lost  in  doing  everything  possible  to  hasten  the  pro- 
curing of  a  Government  appropriation  for  canalizing  the  Hudson  River  between  Troy 
and  the  barge-canal  t,erminus  at  Waterford.    ^  *  * 


HUDSON  EIVEK,  NEW  YOKK. 


65 


Early  in  1909  the  superintendent  of  public  works  of  this  State  was  instrumental  in 
securing  a  Federal  appropriation  for  surveying  the  Hudson  with  a  view  to  making 
plans  and  estimates  for  a  suitable  barge-canal  outlet.  About  a  month  ago  the  chair- 
man of  the  House  Rivers  and  Harbors  Committee  assured  a  body  of  representatives 
from  this  State  that  he  would  do  what  lay  in  his  power  to  induce  the  Government  to 
undertake  and  complete  work  in  the  Hudson  between  Troy  and  Waterford  in  time  for 
barge-canal  traffic.    *   *  * 

I  recommend  that  the  legislature  exert  its  influence  to  secure  this  appropriation 
and  be  insistent  in  its  demands  for  speedy  action. 

8.  In  the  report  of  the  proceedings  of  the  advisory  board  of  con- 
sulting engineers  (New  York  State  Barge  Canal)  for  the  year  1904,  on 
page  148  there  appears  the  following  letter  to  Hon.  E.  A.  Bond,  chair- 
rrian  advisory  board  of  consulting  engineers,  from  Thomas  W.  Symons, 
one  of  its  members: 

Washington,  D.  C,  March  7,  190,5. 

Hon.  E.  A.  Bond, 

Chairman  Advisory  Board  of  Consulting  Engineers, 

Albany,  N.  Y. 

Dear  Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  immediately  after  the  passage  of 
the  river  and  harbor  bill  by  the  House  of  Representatives  I  went  to  the  Capitol  and 
examined  the  bill  and  found  that  there  was  no  item  for  the  Hudson  River  between 
Troy  and  Waterford.  I  immediately  went  to  Senator  Depew  and  told  him  of  the 
omission  and  gave  him  the  draft  of  an  item  to  go  in  as  a  Senate  amendment.  This  he 
put  in  and  it  passed  the  Senate  and  was  concurred  in  by  the  House,  so  that  now  there 
IS  authority  for  a  preliminary  examination,  survey,  and  estimate  for  a  12-foot  channel 
from  Troy  to  Waterford. 

With  this  item  as  a  starter,  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  if  our  canal  work 
goes  on  the  Government  will  improve  the  Hudson  to  a  12-foot  depth  up  to  the  end  of 
the  State  canals  proper  at  Waterford. 

Very  truly,  yours,  Thomas  W.  Symons. 

9.  In  the  report  of  the  advisory  board  of  consulting  engineers  for 
1909,  on  page  28,  under  the  head  of  ''Hudson  River  improvement 
there  is  a  report,  from  which  the  following  are  extracts : 

The  advisory  board  of  consulting  engineers  believes  that  it  is  proper  for  the  United 
States  Government  to  improve  the  Hudson  River  from  the  point  at  Waterford  where 
the  Erie  Canal  connects  with  it,  on  to  the  south,  so  that  vessels  engaged  in  canal  naviga- 
tion could  freely  pass  to  the  seacoast,  and  has  made  it  a  portion  of  its  duties  to  bring 
this  about. 

Then  follows  a  report  from  Col.  Symons,  dated  January  17,  1909, 
on  the  condition  of  the  river,  what  was  necessary  to  be  done,  and 
the  advisable  procedure  in  the  matter.   The  following  is  an  extract: 

Third.  I  believe  that  efforts  should  now  be  made  to  have  included  in  the  probable 
river  and  harbor  bill  an  item  looking  to  a  preliminary  examination  and  plans  and  sur- 
veys for  deepening  the  river  from  New  York  to  Waterford,  so  as  to  provide  a  depth 
of  12  feet  at  all  stages  during  the  season  of  navigation.  The  proper  wording  of  the 
item  in  the  list  providing  for  these  examinations  I  conceive  to  be  as  follows: 

"Hudson  River^New  York,  with  the  view  of  providing  a  navigable  channel  which 
shall  not  be  less  than  200  feet  wide  and  12  feet  deep  at  all  times  during  the  season  of 
navigation,  from  deep  water  in  the  lower  river  to  Waterford,  including  a  lock  and 
dam  at  Troy,  suitable  in  size  for  all  probable  purposes  of  navigation  and  com- 
merce."   *   *  * 

It  is  suggested  that  this  matter  be  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  governor,  the 
State  engineer,  and  the  superintendent  of  public  works,  in  the  hope  that  they  will 
take  the  necessary  steps  to  bring  it  to  the  attention  of  our  Senators  and  Representatives 
in  Washington,  urging  that  the  action  as  outlined  be  taken,  unless  something  better 
be  suggested. 

On  page  61  of  the  same  report  it  appears  that  a  resolution  to  that 
effect  was  adopted. 

Col.  Symons  took  this  matter  up  with  the  members  of  the  River  and  Harbor  Com- 
mittee of  the  House  of  Representatives  in  Washington,  who  were  engaged  in  preparing 

54559— S.  Doc.  887,  62-2  5 


66 


HUDSON  EIVEE,  NEW  YOKK. 


the  river  and  harbor  bill,  and  finally  succeeded  in  ha\dng  incorporated  the  desired 
item  in  the  bill  looking  to  the  necessary  surveys,  plans,  and  estimate  of  cost  for  the 
work  required  to  give  a  depth  of  12  feet  at  all  stages  of  water  and  not  less  than  200 
feet  wide.    *   *  * 

Col.  William  M.  Black,  Corps  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army;  A.  C.  Harper 
and  R.  H.  Talcott,  assistant  engineers,  appeared  before  the  board  at  its  meeting  held 
November  23,  1909,  and  discussed  with  it  matters  in  relation  to  the  proposed  improve- 
ment of  the  Hudson  River  by  the  United  States  Government  from  deep  water  below 
Albany,  to  the  junction  of  the  bai'ge  canal  with  the  Hudson  River,  especially  with 
regai'd  to  the  construction  of  the  proposed  lock  and  dam  above  Troy;  also  matters 
in  reference  to  a  draw  span  over  the  Hudson  River  at  Waterford  and  to  the  height  and 
span  of  other  bridges. 

Note. — It  was  at  this  meeting  that  I  explained  to  the  advisory 
board  my  opinion  as  to  the  necessity  for  a  change  in  the  site  of  the 
lock  and  dam  at  Tro}".  My  plans  were  approved  by  them.  This 
was  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  project  by  Congress. 

10.  On  page  322  of  part  2  of  the  Report  of  Advisory  Board  of  Con- 
sulting Engineers,  1910,  is  found  the  following  extract  from  a  meeting 
of  the  advisory  board,  held  on  December  29,  1910: 

In  compliance  with  the  request  of  the  canal  board  the  advisory  board  delegated  one 
of  its  members  to  attend  said  hearing.  This  representative  of  the  board  advocated 
the  adoption  of  plans  proposed  by  Col.  W.  M.  Black,  Corps  of  Engineers,  United 
States  Army,  for  a  dam  1,400  feet  north  of  the  present  State  dam  for  the  following 
reasons : 

''(1)  Because  of  the  fact  that  the  construction  at  the  upper  site  will  probably  be 
completed,  as  proposed,  at  a  cost  of  from  $150,000  to  $200,000  less  than  could  similar 
work  at  a  site  below  the  present  State  dam. 

"(2)  Because  said  construction  in  said  location  above  State  dam  could  be  begun 
more  expeditiously  and  the  work  sooner  placed  under  contract  than  if  same  were 
undertaken  at  a  site  below  present  State  dam. 

"(3)  Because  the  location  above  the  State  dam  makes  it  practicable  to  develop 
advantageously,  say,  4,000'horsepower  or  more,  and  that  power  thus  developed  at  the 
upper  site  could  be  competed  for  on  equal  terms  by  all  interested  parties,  whereas  for 
power  generated  at  present  site  of  dam  the  present  users  thereof  are  naturally  in  the 
most  advantageous  position  to  bid,  and  thus  render  impracticable  free  and  equal 
competition  for  any  power  that  may  be  developed  at  said  present  site. 

"(4)  Because  the  dam,  in  proposed  upper  location,  greatly  improves  conditions 
for  navigation  in  the  vicinity  of  Troy.  It  affords  a  good  harbor  pool  above  the  dam 
and  makes  possible  the  much-needed  improvement  to  Troy's  water  front.  It  also 
lengthens  the  available  harbor  at  Troy  by  some  1,400  feet,  more  or  less." 

On  page  31  of  part  1  of  the  report,  under  the  head  '^United  States 
lock  and  dam  at  Troy,"  appears  the  following: 

By  January  6,  1910,  tentative  plans  for  the  proposed  lock  and  dam  at  Troy  in  connec- 
tion with  the  improvement  of  the  Hudson  River,  authorized  by  the  river  and  harbor 
bill  of  1909,  had  so  far  progressed  that  they  were  presented  by  Col.  W,  M.  Black,, 
Corps  of  Engineers,  and  his  assistants.  These  plans  provide  for  locating  the  dam 
upstream  from  the  present  structure.  Lieut.  R.  D.  Black,  in  charge  of  this  work, 
has  been  notified  that  the  construction  of  this  dam  should  be  so  conducted  that  the 
navigation  of  the  Erie  and  Champlain  Canals  can  pass  from  Waterford  through  the 
Hudson  River  and  the  present  lock  at  Troy  while  the  new  work  is  being  installed. 

"Improving  Hudson  River,  New  York:  For  maintenance  and  continuing  improve- 
ment in  accordance  with  the  report  submitted  in  House  Document  Numbered  Seven 
hundred  and  nineteen,  Sixty-first  Congress,  second  session,  and  with  a  view  to  com- 
pleting said  improvement  within  a  period  of  four  years,  one  million  three  hundred 
and  fifty  thousand  dollars:  Provided,  That  the  expenditure  of  the  amounts  herein  and 
hereafter  appropriated  for  said  improvement  shall  be  subject  to  the  conditions  set 
forth  in  said  document:  Provided  further,  That  the  general  plan  for  the  improvement 
presented  in  said  document  shall  be  subject  to  such  modification  as  to  the  location 
of  the  dam  and  in  matters  of  detail  as  may  be  recommended  by  the  Chief  of  Engineers 
and  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  War." 

In  this  connection  the  Secretary  of  War  addressed  a  communication  to  his  excel- 
lency the  governor,  explaining  that  it  would  be  necessary,  before  commencement 


HUDSON  EIVEE,  NEW  TOEK. 


67 


of  work,  that  the  Government  control  all  operations  of  the  existing  lock  and  dam 
and  be  empowered  to  remove  them  when  the  interests  of  the  improvement  require, 
thus  necessitating  formal  abandonment  by  the  State  and  revocation  of  the  several 
existing  leases  of  water  rights.  The  Secretary  of  War  further  indicated  that  this 
action  would  work  no  hardship  to  the  power  users,  as  the  Government  might  grant 
them  licenses  for  the  present  and  as  provision  is  to  be  made  for  the  development  and 
lease  of  water  power  from  the  new  structure. 

Under  date  of  August  23,  1910,  the  attorney  general  rendered  the  governor  an 
opinion,  embracing  the  following: 

"I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  State  of  New  York  may  not  constitutionally  abandon 
the  said  dam  and  lock  as  proposed,  as  that  would  contemplate  a  consequent  perma- 
nent abandonment  and  surrender  to  the  Federal  Government  and  the  subsequent 
maintenance  and  operation  by  it  of  what  is  now  a  part  of  the  canal  system  of  the  State 
of  New  York. 

"I  am  of  the  opinion,  however,  that  the  State  may  destroy  and  thereby  in  effect 
abandon  the  existing  State  dam  and  lock. 

"Treating  the  proposition  as  one  not  for  the  abandonment,  in  the  sense  of  relin- 
quishment of  control  of  any  part  of  the  canal  or  its  management,  but  rather  in  the 
nature  of  a  resumption  of  control  of  water,  it  would  seem  that  under  reservation  of  the 
leases,  the  superintendent  of  public  works  (with  the  approval  of  the  canal  board), 
if  he  is  of  the  opinion  that  it  will  be  advantageous  to  the  State,  may  at  any  time  pro- 
vide for  the  destruction  of  the  dam  in  question  and  the  consequent  extinguishment 
of  all  water-power  rights  and  privileges." 

The  board,  therefore,  on  September  7,  1910,  adopted  the  following  resolution: 

^'Resolved,  That,  believing  the  course  hereafter  described  will  be  for  the  best 
interests  of  the  State,  the  advisory  board  of  consulting  engineers  recommends  to  his 
excellency  the  governor  of  the  State  of  New  York,  to  the  State  officers  comprising 
the  canal  board  and  the  land  board,  and  to  the  superintendent  of  public  works  in 
his  individual  capacity,  subject  to  proper  legal  restrictions  and  requirements,  the 
revocation  of  revocable  permits  now  in  force,  authorizing  certain  power  users  to  develop 
power  hydraulically  from  the  State  dam  at  Troy,  and  also  that  the  State  in  due  course 
and  by  proper  legal  means  destroy  said  State  dam  at  Troy,  in  order  that  the  improve- 
ment by  the  General  Government  of  the  Hudson  River  under  the  river  and  harbor 
act  of  June  25,  1910,  may  be  diligently  and  efiiciently  prosecuted. 

'^Further  resolved,  That  the  attention  of  the  State  officers  is  respectfully  invited 
to  the  methods  followed  in  the  acquisition  by  the  General  Government  of  that  portion 
of  the  Erie  Canal  in  the  vicinity  of  Black  Rock  which  was  taken  for  construction  of 
ship  canal  from  Lake  Erie  to  the  foot  of  Squaw  Island  in  the  city  of  Buffalo,  which 
reconstructed  canal  will  virtually  form  the  western  terminus  of  the  barge  canal  of 
the  State. 

Further  resolved,  That  whereas  the  Government  authorities  in  their  communica- 
tions to  the  State  officials  have  announced  their  intention  to  care  for  navigation 
between  Lansingburg  and  the  pool  below  the  sloop  lock  after  the  year  1910,  it  is  rec- 
ommended that  their  attention  be  called  to  the  fact  that  beginning  with  the  season 
of  1912  it  will  be  necessary  to  divert  Erie  Canal  na\dgation  through  the  improved 
Erie  Canal  from  the  Upper  Mohawk  to  Waterford,  then  xidi  the  Hudson  River,  and  for 
that  reason  the  Federal  authorities  be  requested  to  so  plan  their  work  as  to  care  for 
Erie  Canal  navigation  through  the  Troy  lock,  beginning  with  the  year  1912. 

Further  resolved.  That  in  making  the  aforesaid  recommendations  the  board  desires 
to  record  that  it  has  in  mind  the  constant  efforts  of  Senators  and  Representatives  in 
Congress,  State  officers,  and  commercial  bodies  and  citizens  of  New  York,  who  for 
years  have  sought  to  obtain  adequate  Federal  appropriations  for  the  improvement  of 
the  Upper  Hudson.  For  the  purpose  of  effecting  said  improvements  it  is  necessary 
that  the  State  take  the  action  heretofore  recommended  by  this  board." 

Upon  invitation  the  board  met  with  the  canal  board  and  members  of  both  bodies 
waited  upon  the  governor.  The  superintendent  of  public  works  and  the  attorney 
general  were  named  by  the  canal  board  a  committee  to  meet  with  the  Federal 
authorities  for  discussion  and  report.  As  a  result  of  this  report  the  canal  board  rec- 
ommended that  the  superintendent  cancel  leases  for  power  generated  at  the  sloop 
lock  and  dam.  These  leases  were  canceled  under  date  of  November  22,  1910,  by  the 
superintendent  of  public  works.  The  board  concurred  in  these  recommendations 
to  the  legislature  and  urges  as  prompt  action  as  possible  in  the  matter. 

It  is  the  understanding  of  the  board  that  in  the  construction  of  the  lock  and  dam  by 
the  General  Government  it  is  proposed  to  maintain  the  upper  pool  during  such  con- 
struction at  its  present  elevation;  also  to  keep  navigation  open  in  the  sloop  lock.  It  is 
very  essential  that  the  upper  pool  be  not  lowered  during  the  construction,  as  such  low- 
ering would  interfere  with  the  progress  of  contract  No.  70. 


68 


HUDSON  EIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


The  board  desires  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  the  Government's  project  for 
improvement  of  the  Hudson  River  from  Albany  to  Lansingburg  its  improvement  con- 
templates much  more  work  than  was  included  in  the  barge  canal  project,  the  river 
being  greatly  increased  *in  width  of  channel  and  larger  lock  and  better  harbors  for 
Troy  being  afforded. 

11.  The  Barge  Canal  Bulletin  is  an  official  monthly  publication 
sent  out  by  the  State  engineer  and  surveyor  to  show  the  progress  of 
the  work  on  the  canals.  On  page  39  of  the  bulletin  for  March,  1908, 
appears  the  following  item: 

CANALIZING  THE  HUDSON,  TROY  TO  WATERFORD. 

The  State  engineer  had  prepared  a  memorial  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
asking  for  Federal  aid  in  canalizing  the  Hudson  between  Congress  Street,  Troy,  and 
the  beginning  of  the  barge  canal  at  Waterford.  He  will  present  this  memorial  within 
a  short  time.  The  commerical  organizations  of  Albany  and  Troy  are  also  taking  steps 
to  gain  this  same  end . 

12.  In  the  bulletin  for  May,  1908,  pages  95  to  102,  under  the  head 
of  '^Canalizing  the  Hudson,  Troy  to  Waterford,"  after  mentioning 
the  preparation  of  the  memorial,  it  is  stated: 

Recently  this  memorial  was  presented  at  a  hearing  before  the  Committee  on  Rivers 
and  Harbors. 

In  order  that  it  may  be  generally  known  what  strong  arguments  may  be  adduced 
in  support  of  the  State's  claim  for  Federal  aid  and  also  how  little,  relatively.  New  York 
has  received  from  the  General  Government,  it  seems  fitting  to  repeat  here  some  of  the 
facts  set  forth  in  this  memorial. 

But  first  we  may  consider  briefly  the  history  of  this  project.  In  his  annual  message 
to  the  legislature  of  1905  the  governor  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  New  York's  share 
of  the  millions  appropriated  for  rivers  and  harbors  was  but  trifling  compared  with  the 
percentage  which  her  commerce  bears  to  the  whole  commerce  of  the  United  States, 
and  he  suggested  that  our  representatives  in  Congress  be  requested  to  press  the  claims 
of  the  State  for  larger  appropriations.  About  a  year  later  this  was  followed  by  an 
appeal  from  the  State  engineer  for  the  Government  to  undertake  the  canalization  of 
the  Hudson  between  Troy  and  Northumberland .  Thus  far  these  appeals  have  resulted 
only  in  the  making  of  a  survey  and  estimate  of  cost  for  improving  that  portion  of  the 
river  from  Troy  to  Waterford. 

13.  For  a  further  understanding  of  the  attitude  of  the  officials  of 
the' State  of  New  York,  a  copy  of  a  letter  dated  July  14,  1910,  ad- 
dressed to  the  Hon.  Frederick  C.  Stevens,  superintendent  of  public 
works,  by  Hon.  Edward  R.  O'Malley,  attorney  general,  is  given  as 
inclosure  '^B.'^ 

14.  From  the  ffies  of  this  office  dated  September  22,  1909,  are 
taken  the  following  resolutions  passed  by  official  bodies  of  the  State 
of  New  York: 

Copy  of  resolution  passed  February  25,  1909,  by  the  Senate  and 
Assembly  of  the  State  of  New  York: 

Whereas  the  great  and  growing  demands  of  commerce  along  and  upon  the  upper 
Hudson  River  require  the  widening  and  deepening  of  the  channel  of  such  river; 
and 

Whereas  such  river,  being  a  navigable  stream,  is  under  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of 
the  Government  of  the  United  States:  Therefore, 

Resolved  {if  the  senate  concur),  That  the  Representatives  of  this  State  in  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  be,  and  they  hereby  are,  requested  to  use  every  honorable  effort 
to  procure  an  appropriation  for  the  immediate  commencement  of  the  work  of  exca- 
vating a  channel  in  such  river  400  feet  wide  and  22  feet  deep  extending  fi-om  the  city 
of  Hudson  to  the  village  of  Waterford. 


HUDSON"  KIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


69 


Resolution  adopted  by  the  city  of  Albany  in  common  council 
Monday,  April  30,  1908: 

Whereas  representative  citizens  of  Albany,  through  the  officers  and  committees  of  the 
Albany  Chamber  of  Commerce,  have  started  a  movement  designed  to  influence  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  to  make  an  appropriation  for  the  establishment  of  a 
20  foot  channel  in  the  Hudson  River  between  Waterford  and  Hudson,  N.  Y.;  and 

Whereas  his  honor  the  mayor  of  Albany  has  appointed  Frederick  W.  Cameron,  Esq., 
and  Dexter  Hunter,  Esq.,  to  represent  the  city  of  Albany  and  to  act  in  this  matter 
with  representatives  of  cities  and  villages  and  business  men's  organizations  between 
Waterford  and  HudsDu;  and 

Whereas  these  representatives  propose  to  appear  before  the  Rivers  and  Hai'bors  Com- 
mittee at  Washington  to  advocate  the  improvement  of  the  Hudson  River  in  this 
vicinity:  Therefore  be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  common  council  hereby  approves  the  action  of  his  honor  the 
mayor  in  appointing  two  citizens  to  represent  the  city  of  Albany,  and  records  its  in- 
dorsement of  the  general  scheme  for  improving  the  Hudson  River  as  outlined  by  the 
business  interests  of  the  city:  And  be  it  further 

Resolved,  That  we  most  respectfully  urge  Representatives  Draper  and  Southwick 
to  use  their  influence  with  the  Rivers  and  Harbors  Committee  at  Washington  to 
grant  the  request  of  our  city's  representatives  for  an  appropriation  in  the  rivers  and 
harbors  bill  of  1909. 

Adopted. 

A  true  copy  thereof  and  of  the  whole  of  the  same. 

«  Frederick  U.  Bresler, 

Cleric  of  Common  Council. 

Resolutions  of  a  similar  tenor  were  adopted  by  the  board  of  trustees 
of  the  village  of  Green  Island,  the  board  of  trustees  of  the  village  of 
Castle  ton,  the  common  council  of  Hudson,  N.  Y.,  the  town  board  of 
the  town  of  Stuyvesant,  N.  Y.,  the  common  council  of  the  city  of 
Troy,  the  board  of  trustees  of  the  village  of  Valatie,  and  the  common 
council  of  the  city  of  Watervliet. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  M.  Black, 
Colonel,  Corps  oj  Engineers. 

[First  indorsement.] 

War  Department, 
Office  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers, 

Wasliinpton,  Novembers,  1911, 

Respectfully  transmitted  to  the  Judge  Advocate  General,  United 
States  Army,  the  information  contained  in  these  papers  being  fur- 
nished in  response  to  oral  request  from  his  office. 

W.  H.  BlXBY, 

ChieJ  oj  Engineers,  United  States  Army. 

[Inclosure  A.] 

Albany,  N.  Y.,  April  2,  1906. 

Mr.  R.  H.  Talcott, 

United  States  Engineer's  Office,  Albany. 

Dear  Sir:  Your  letter  of  March  31  is  at  hand  and  I  will  be  pleased 
to  send  you  the  blue  prints  requested  as  soon  as  possible. 

I  placed  the  question  before  the  canal  board  at  their  last  meeting 
on  March  29  as  to  whether  the  State  would  be  willing  to  maintain 
the  lock  and  dam  at  Troy  and  the  river  adjacent  thereto  in  case  the 
Government  should  decide  to  do  this  work.  It  was  the  unanimous 
opinion  of  the  canal  board  that  I  be  authorized  to  advise  you  that 


70 


HUDSON"  EIVEK,  NEW  YORK. 


the  State  would  gladly  take  care  of  the  maintenance  of  this  portion 
of  the  Hudson  River  should  the  Government  see  fit  to  make  the 
improvement. 

Very  truly,  yours,  Henry  A.  van  Alstyne, 

State  Engineer  and  Surveyor. 


[Inclosnre  B .] 

July  14,  1910. 

Hon.  Frederick  C.  Stevens, 

Superintendent  oj  Public  Worlcs,  Albany,  N.  Y. 

Dear  Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your 
favor  of  the  30th  ultimo,  in  which  you  ask  for  my  opinion  with  refer- 
ence to  certain  water  leases  at  the  Troy  Dam.  From  your  letter  and 
from  an  examination  of  the  leases  and  from  discussions  with  your 
department  and  the  members  of  the  advisory  board  of  consulting 
engineers  the  following  facts  appear: 

On  the  2d  day  of  January,  1832,  the  State  leased  certain  surplus 
waters  at  the  east  end  of  the  Troy  Dam  to  the  Lansingburg  Dry 
Dock  &  Hydraulic  Co.  pursuant  to  section  106,  title  9,  chapter, 9,  of 
the  Revised  Statutes,  and  on  the  26th  day  of  November,  1835,  the 
surplus  waters  at  the  west  end  of  the  same  dam  were  leased  to  one 
George  Tibbitts  pursuant  to  the  same  law. 

The  first  of  these  leases  was  recorded  in  the  Renssalaer  County 
clerk's  office,  in  volume  25  of  deeds,  at  pages  280,  281,  and  the  second 
in  the  Albany  County  clerk's  office  in  book  L  L  of  deeds,  at  page  402. 
Both  of  these  instruments  provided  for  the  payment  of  annual  rentals 
and  for  terms  of  999  years.  These  rents  have  been  paid  to  date.  I 
assume  that  both  of  these  leases  are  now  owned  by  the  International 
Paper  Co. 

The  instruments  contain  the  following  provisions: 

*  *  *  the  use  of  the  surplus  water  which  may  be  taken  at  the  east  (west)  end  of 
the  aforesaid  dam,  and  not  exceeding  onejhalf  of  the  quantity  which  may  be  taken 
at  both  ends  of  said  dam,  such  surplus  water  to  be  taken  and  drawn  from  the  said  dam, 
at  such  place  and  in  such  manner,  and  be  discharged  at  such  place  and  in  such  manner 
as  the  acting  canal  commissioner  or  the  canal  commissioners  shall  from  time  to  time 
direct,  saving  and  reserving  to  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part  the  right  wholly  to  re- 
sume the  waters  hereby  conveyed  and  the  privilege  hereby  granted,  and  to  control 
and  limit  the  use  of  said  water  and  privileges  whenever,  in  the  opinion  of  the  canal 
board  or  of  the  legislature,  the  necessary  supply  of  water  for  use  of  any  State  canal, 
or  the  safety  of  such  canal,  or  works  connected  therewith,  shall  render  such  resump- 
tion, control,  or  limitation  necessary.  And  in  case  any  such  resumption  shall  be  made, 
or  control  or  limitation  imposed,  no  compensation  or  damages  shall  be  allowed  for  any 
improvements  or  erections  made,  or  which  may  be  made  under  or  in  consequence 
of  this  grant  or  lease.  And  also  saving  and  reserving  to  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part 
the  right,  without  making  any  compensation  to  the  said  parties  of  the  second  part 
or  any  other  person  claiming  under  them,  wholly  to  abandon  or  destroy  the  work 
by  the  construction  of  which  the  said  surplus  water  has  been  created,  whenever  in 
the  opinion  of  the  canal  commissioners  the  occupation  and  use  of  the  said  work  shall 
cease  to  be  advantageous  to  the  State. 

At  the  present  time  the  canal  system  of  the  State  uses  a  portion 
of  the  Hudson  River  from  Waterford  to  and  through  this  dam  for 
navigation  purposes.  The  river  and  harbor  bill,  passed  by  the 
last  Congress  contains  an  item  for  the  improvement  of  the  Hudson 
River  in  the  vicinity  of  Troy  in  such  a  manner  as  to  result  in  a  channel 
of  at  least  12  feet  in  depth  and  200  feet  in  width  to  connect  with  the 
barge  canal  at  Waterford.    This  action  of  the  Federal  Government 


HUDSON  EIVEK,  NEW  YOKK. 


71 


was  taken  at  the  request  of  the  State  of  New  York  as  expressed  by 
its  canal  officials  and  citizens.  The  tentative  plan  of  Col.  Black,  of  the 
Corps  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army,  calls  for  the  construction 
of  a  dam  in  the  Hudson  River  at  a  point  about  800  feet  upstream 
from  and  for  the  abandonment  of  the  present  Troy  Dam. 

Under  the  above  facts  the  question  arises  as  to  what  are  the  rights 
and  duties  of  the  superintendent  of  public  works  and  all  other  offi- 
cials of  the  State  charged  with  the  construction  of  the  barge  canal 
with  reference  to  the  cancellation  or  termination  of  these  water 
leases. 

It  is,  of  course,  indisputable  that  no  portion  of  the  Erie  or  Cham- 
plain  Canals  can  be  abandoned  so  as  to  result  in  the  destruction  of  a 
navigable  communication  with  the  Hudson  River.  If  in  the  prose- 
cution of  the  work  directed  by  chapter  147  of  the  laws  of  1903  and 
the  acts  amendatory  thereof  and  supplemental  thereto,  the  State 
should  construct  a  new  dam  at  the  site  above  mentioned  and  should 
thereby  as  a  necessar^"  result  of  the  improvement  abandon  the  Troy 
Dam,  it  is  my  opinion  that  under  the  last  sentence  of  the  above  quo- 
tation the  superintendent  of  public  works,  in  whom  are  vested  the 
owers  of  the  canal  commissioners,  with  the  approval  of  the  canal 
oard,  would  have  the  power  to  wholly  abandon  or  destroy  the  Troy 
Dam  without  the  pa^mient  of  compensation  to  the  present  owners  of 
the  water  leases,  whenever  the  new  dam  should  be  in  a  condition  to 
continue  navigation  jDast  the  point  of  the  present  Troy  Dam;  and  if 
canal  navigation  in  both  canals  could  be  maintained  to  the  Hudson 
by  means  of  the  canal  now  entering  the  river  at  Albany  and  without 
the  use  of  the  Troy  Dam,  that  dam  might  in  like  manner  be  abandoned 
and  destroyed  wiien  to  do  so  would  be  advantageous  to  the  State. 
What  the  State  through  the  propsr  officials  can  do  performing  the 
work  itself,  it  is  my  opinion  it  can  likewise  do  when  the  work  is  being 
I)erfornied  for  it  by  the  Federal  Government. 

This  abandonment  and  destruction  of  the  Troy  Dam  should  be 
accomplished  after  giving  notice  to  the  present  owners  of  those  water 
leases  of  the  proposed  action  of  the  State,  and  of  the  time  when  by 
virtue  of  the  completion  of  the  new  dam  or  by  the  diverting  of  all 
canal  navigation  through  the  Albany  terminal  the  old  dam  ceases  to 
become  a  necessary  part  of  canal  works. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

Edward  R.  O'M alley, 

Attorney  General. 


Chamber  of  Commerce, 

Troy  N.  Y.,  . 

Col.  William  M.  Black. 

My  Dear  Sir:  I  inclose  herewith  a  copy  of  preambles  and  resolu- 
tions adopted  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  New  York  on  or 
about  March  10,  1910. 

I  call  your  attention  particularly  to  the  second  resolution,  urging 
our  Members  of  Congress  to  act  in  unison  ''to  carry  out  the  recom- 
mendations made  by  the  War  Department  with  reference  to  the 
river  improvement." 

Before  that  date  your  report  concerning  the  improvement  of  the 
Hudson  River  and  the  construction  of  the  dam  and  lock  had  been 


72 


HUDSON  EIVEE,  NEW  YOKK. 


transmitted  to  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  and  had  been  published  in 
the  local  papers.  That  report  was  dated  January  10,  1910,  and  on 
February  25,  1910,  it  was  sent  with  other  papers  by  the  Secretary  of 
War  to  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 

That  report  is  set  forth  in  House  Document  No.  719,  and  by  the 
river  and  harbor  act  of  June  25,  1910,  the  improvement  of  the  Hud- 
son River  was  directed  to  be  carried  out  in  accordance  with  the 
report  submitted  in  that  House  document,  with  a  proviso  that  the 
general  plan  should  be  subject  to  such  modification  as  to  the  location 
of  the  dam  and  any  matters  of  detail  as  may  be  recommended  by 
the  Chief  of  Engineers  and  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  War. 

These  plans  include  the  construction  of  the  dam  and  lock  by  the 
National  G6vernment  and  at  a  point  about  1,400  feet  above  the 
present  site.  The  plans  also  included  the  building  by  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  channel  in  the  river  below  the  dam  and  above  the  dam 
to  Waterford,  where  the  Erie  and  Champlain  ^anals  enter  the  river. 
All  these  things  were  well  known  at  the  time  these  resolutions  were 
adopted  by  the  legislature. 

I  do  not  believe  that  the  attention  of  the  honorable  the  Secretary 
of  War  has  ever  been  called  to  this  action  of  the  legislature,  and  I 
should  be  much  pleased  if  you  thought  it  proper  to  act  on  the  sug- 
gestion now  made  that  you  transmit  a  copy  of  this  letter  and  the 
preambles  and  resolutions  to  the  honorable  the  Secretary  of  War 
and  to  the  Chief  of  Engineers. 

Very  respectfully,  yours,  Wm.  W.  Loomis, 

President  CJiamber  of  Commerce. 

[First  indorsement.] 

United  States  Engineer  Office, 
New  Yorlc,  N.  Y.,  January  16,  1912. 

1.  Respectfully  forwarded  to  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  United 
States  Army,  as  requested  by  the  writer. 

W.  M.  Black, 
Colonel,  Corps  of  -  Engineers. 


Preamhles  and  resolutions  adopted  hy  the  Legislature  of  tJie  State  of  New 

Yorlc  on  or  ahout  March  10,  1910. 

Whereas  the  State  of  New  York  is  committed  to  expending  upward 
of  $100,000,000  for  the  enlargement  of  its  canals  so  as  to  increase 
their  usefulness  as  transportation  agencies  and  as  regulators  of 
freight  rates ;  and 

Whereas  in  the  opinion  of  the  public  officers  who  have  charge  of  the 
work  it  is  so  far  advanced  that  it  will  be  completed  in  or  prior  to 
1914;  and 

Whereas  to  secure  the  objects  sought  by  this  expenditure  it  is  essen- 
tial that  the  channel  of  the  Hudson  River  shall  be  deepened  and 
widened,  so  that  the  depth  of  the  river  shall  be  at  least  equal  to 
that  of  the  canals,  and  that  continuous  and  commodious  highways 
of  commerce  shall  extend  from  the  Great  Lakes  and  from  Lake 
Champlain  to  the  metropolis;  and 


HUDSON  EIVEK,  NEW  YOEK. 


73 


Whereas  the  cooperation  of  the  Federal  Government  is  necessary  for 
this  purpose  and  the  timely  inauguration  of  the  work  that  should 
be  done  is  of  the  greatest  importance:  Now,  therefore,  be  it 
Resolved  (if  the  assembly  concur),  That  the  Congress  of  the  Lnited 
States  is  hereby  respectfully  requested  to  enact  such  legislation  and 
make  such  appropriations  as  may  be  proper  and  necessary  lor  the 
improvement  of  the  Hudson  River,  and  the  securing  therein  oi  a 
channel  which  shall  be  of  a  depth  equal  to  that  of  the  canals,  and  a 
harbor  sufficient  in  width  to  permit  of  the  safe  and  convenient  assem- 
bling and  handling  of  vessels  and  barges  passing  from  one  into  the 

other;  and  be  it  further  ,       .         .     j?  i 

Resolved,  That  the  Senators  representing  the  State  ol  i\ew  lork 
in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  and  the  Members  of  the  House  ot 
Representatives  from  the  several  districts  of  this  State  are  hereby 
urged  to  give  this  matter  their  earnest  attention  and  to  act  m  unison 
in  securing  such  legislation  and  appropriations  at  the  present  session 
of  Congress  as  mav  be  necessary  to  carry  out  the  recommendations 
made  by  the  War '^Department  with  reference  to  the  river  improve- 
ment; rind  be  it  further 

Resolved  {if  the  assemUy  concur),  That  the  presiding  officers  ol  the 
legislature  are  hereby  directed  to  cause  these  preambles  and  I'esolu- 
tions  to  be  printed,  properly  certified,  and  transmitted  to  both 
Houses  of  Congress,  and  also  to  have  copies  thereof  sent  to  each  Sen- 
ator and  Representative  from  this  State  in  the  Congress  of  the  Lnited 
States. 


January  19,  1912. 

Hon.  John  A.  Dix, 

Governor  of  New  Yorl,  Albany,  N.  Y. 
My  Dear  Governor:  Referring  to  our  previous  correspondence 
in  regard  to  the  improvement  of  the  Hudson  River  m  the  vicinity 
of  Troy,  I  wish  to  state  to  you  briefly  the  position  of  the  Government, 
decided  upon  after  mature  consideration.  ^        ^  . 

For  10  years  the  State  of  Nevv^  York,  acting  througn  its  executive 
and  legislative  branches,' has  beeii  urging  the  Federal  Government 
to  undertake  the  improvement  of  the  Hudson  River  between  Iroy 
and  Waterford  as  a  part  of  the  New  York  State  Barge  Canal  system. 
That  portion  of  the  Hudson  River  is  admittedly  a  navigable  stream 
and  under  Federal  jurisdiction,  and  national  appropriations  for  its 
improvement  are  justified  because  of  the  national  and  international 
importance  of  the  navigation  and  commerce  which  wdl  be  benefited 
by  such  proposed  improvement.  . 

After  several  congressional  appropriations  for  prehmmary  sur- 
veys, this  efi'ort  on  the  part  of  the  State  to  secure  national  action 
culminated  in  an  item  of  the  river  and  harbor  act  of  June  25,  1910 
(36  Stat.,  635),  making  an  appropriation  of  $1,350,000  for  improving 
the  Hudson  River  in  accordance  with  the  engineering  report  sub- 
mitted in  House  Document  No.  719,  SLxty-first  Congress,  second 
session.  The  act  directly  provided  that  the  ^^expenditure  ot  the 
amounts  appropriated  for  said  improvement  shah  be  subject  to  the 
conditions  set  forth  in  said  document."  ^  ^. 

The  project  thus  authorized  by  Congress  called  for  the  construction 
of  a  new  lock  and  dam  in  the  vicinity  of  Troy  about  1,400  feet  north 


74 


HUDSON  EIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


of  the  present  State  lock  and  dam,  the  removal  of  the  present  lock 
and  dam,  and  the  continuance  of  the  channel  from  deep  water  in  the 
lower  river  through  the  present  dam  up  to  Waterford,  it  being  stated 
in  the  report,  ''It  is  advisable  for  the  General  Government  to  under- 
take the  improvement  of  the  Hudson  River  from  deep  water  up  to 
Waterford,  provided  all  existing  water-power  rights  or  privileges 
affected  by  the  improvement  are  extinguished  by  the  State  of  New 
York." 

This  engineer's  report  also  provided,  as  one  of  the  conditions  for 
making  the  improvement,  that  the  Federal  Government  should  be 
empowered  to  lease  such  surplus  water  power  as  was  to  be  created 
by  the  new  Federal  dam.  This  condition  was  imposed  pursuant  to 
the  deliberate  action  of  Congress  as  expressed  the  preceding  year  in 
the  river  and  liarbor  act  of  March  3,  1909,  which  demanded  that  all 
such  engineer's  reports  in  future  for  any  similar  impro\ement  should 
provide  for  the  development  and  utilization  of  water  power  in  order 
to  ''lessen  the  cost  of  such  improvements  and  to  compensate  the 
Government  for  expenditures  made  in  the  interest  of  navigation." 
(35  Stat.,  822.)  This  was  a  declaration  of  a  permanent  national 
policy  which  has  been  carried  out  by  the  Federal  Government  in  many 
other  similar  cases.  In  other  words,  the  abandonment  of  the  old 
Troy  dam,  the  resumption  of  the  water  power,  the  completion  of  a 
new  lock  and  dam  by  the  Federal  Government,  and  the  utilization 
by  the  Federal  Government  of  the  disposable  water  power  created 
by  the  new  dam  in  order  to  lessen  the  cost  of  the  improvement,  were 
all  integral  parts  of  the  improvement  authorized  by  Congress  upon 
the  urgent  request  of  the  State. 

In  compliance  with  the  provisions  of  this  act  the  New  York  State 
Canal  Board  on  November  22,  1910,  passed  a  resolution  abandoning 
the  old  lock  and  dam  as  no  longer  advantageous  to  the  State  and 
resuming  the  surplus  water.  This  resolution  was  forwarded  to  my 
predecessor,  the  then  Secretary  of  War,  by  the  superintendent  of 
public  works  of  New  York,  who  further  advised  the  Secretary  that 
the  water  rights  at  the  dam  had  been  canceled.  Upon  the  faith  of 
this  action  by  the  State  authorities  my  predecessor  proceeded  with 
the  work  and  entered  into  contracts  providing  for  the  expenditures 
of  large  sums. 

.  Thereafter,  by  resolution  of  April  28,  1911,  the  new  State  canal 
board  attempted  to  rescind  its  predecessor's  action  abandoning  the 
dam  and  canceling  the  existing  water  rights.  By  this  resolution  the 
State  authorities  requested  the  Federal  Government  to  confine  the 
improvement  of  the  Hudson  River  to  that  portion  of  the  river  lying 
south  of  the  dam.  I  also  received  a  report  from  Col.  Black,  of  the 
Engineer  Corps,  of  a  conference  between  him  and  yourself,  held  at 
Albany  on  May  9,  in  which  you  expressed  a  desire  that  "the  work  at 
•  and  above  the  State  dam  should  be  deferred  until  Congress  should 
have  an  opportunity  to  pass  upon  a  proposal  of  the  State  of  New 
York  to  construct  a  dam  and  lock  with  its  own  funds." 

Upon  receiving  the  resolution  of  the  new  canal  board  and  this 
report  of  your  own  request  the  work  of  the  Federal  Government  was 
suspended,  and  I  requested  an  opinion  of  the  Attorney  General  of 
the  United  States  as  to  whether  any  part  of  the  appropriation  was 
available  to  carry  out  a  portion  alone  of  the  project,  so  that  at  all 
events  the  work  below  the  dam  might  be  proceeded  with,  even  if  the 


HUJ)SOISr  RIVEK,  NEW  YORK. 


75 


building  of  the  dam  was  held  in  abeyance.  An  opportunity  could 
thus  be  given  to  the  State  authorities  to  lay  before  Congress  your 
plan  of  having  the  dam  built  by  the  State  instead  of  the  Federal 
Government.  On  being  advised  by  the  Attorney  General  in  the 
affirmative,  I  directed  the  prompt  prosecution  of  so  much  of  the  work 
as  was  not  dependent  upon  the  new  lock  and  dam  and  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  existing  structures.  This  work  has  ever  since  been  dili- 
gently carried  forward. 

I  find  now,  however,  after  the  lapse  of  more  than  six  months,  that 
no  step  whatever  has  been  taken  by  the  State  authorities  to  liave 
the  matter  reconsidered  by  Congress,  and  no  bill  has  been  submitted 
to  Congress  to  amend  the  existing  legislation. 

The  commercial  interests  of  the  State  of  New  York,  no  less  than 
the  vast  national  interests  in  the  navigation  of  the  Hudson  River, 
demand  the  prosecution  of  this  work  without  any  further  delay. 
The  barge  canal  system,  for  which  the  people  of  New  York  are  spend- 
ing over  a  hundred  million  dollars,  will,  through  the  Erie  Canal,  con- 
nect the  Atlantic  seaboard  with  the  Great  Lakes  and,  through  the 
Champlain  Canal,  with  the  St.  Lawrence.  These  were  intended  to 
be  national  highways  of  commerce.  To  render  tliem  available,  it  is 
absolutely  necessary  to  remove  the  old  lock  and  dam  and  to  con- 
struct a  new  one  adequate  in  size  for  the  new  canal  traffic.  To 
delay  longer  the  commencement  of  the  construction  of  the  dam  will' 
make  it  unavailable  against  the  time  of  opening  of  the  canal,  and 
thus  delay  the  utilization  of  the  proposed  canal  system.  The  whole 
•  work  is  a  unit,  and  all  of  its  parts  must  be  completed  at  about  the 
same  time  if  the  intended  benefits  are  to  be  realized.  The  Federal 
Government,  so  far  as  it  shares  in  the  responsibility,  can  not  allow 
any  delay  which  will  paralyze,  impair,  or  postpone  a  public  improve- 
ment of  such  great  importance  to  commerce  and  navigation. 

I  have  in  the  meantime  given  careful  study  to  the  legal  questions 
which  have  been  raised  in  this  matter,  and  I  have  come  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  action  of  the  former  New  York  Canal  Board  in  its 
resolution  of  November  22,  1910,  adequately  fulfilled  all  of  the  condi- 
tions laid  down  by  Congress  in  the  act  of  June  25,  1910.  This  was 
also  the  view  expressed  by  the  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States 
in  his  opinion  rendered  to  me  above  mentioned.  That  being  so,  it 
was,  in  my  opinion,  beyond  the  power  of  the  State  to  revoke  its  action 
and  to  interfere  with  the  improvement  authorized  by  Congress  in 
view  of  the  paramount  control  of  Congress  in  the  Hudson  River  as  a 
navigable  water  of  the  LTnited  States.  I  am  also  thoroughly  satisfied 
as  to  the  power  of  the  United  States  to  complete  the  improvement 
under  the  terms  of  the  statute,  including  the  right  to  reimburse  itself 
in  part  for  the  expenditures  of  the  improvement,  by  the  lease  or  sale 
of  any  incidental  water  power  created  by  the  new  dam.  A  considera- 
tion of  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  clearly 
shows  that  the  legislation  is  proper  and  constitutional.  The  doubt 
raised  by  the  attorney  general  of  New  York  must  be  attributed  to  a 
possible  misconception  as  to  tiie  purpose  of  the  act  of  Congress.  The 
improvement  was  authorized  solely  in  the  interest  of  navigation  and 
not  to  create  water  power.  The  Federal  decisions,  acted  upon  in  a 
series  of  similar  improvements  by  Congress,  have  thoroughly  estab- 
lished that  where  water  power  is  incidentally  created  by  a  public 
work  owned  and  operated  by  the  United  States  in  the  interest  of 


76 


HUDSON  KIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


naviojation  such  water  power  is  subject  to  the  exclusive  regulation, 
control,  and  disposition  of  the  United  States.  In  the  present  case  it 
appears  as  a  matter  of  fact  to  be  beyond  dispute  that  the  possible 
rental  from  any  such  surplus  water  power  will  inevitably  be  much 
less  than  adequate  interest  upon  the  Government's  expenditure  in 
making  this  improvement. 

I  have  therefore  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  War  Department 
must  carry  out  the  mandate  of  Congress  and  proceed  with  the  con- 
struction of  the  work  with  which  it  is  charged,  including  the  con- 
struction of  the  new  lock  and  dam. 

Very  respectfully,  Henry  L.  Stimson, 

Secretary  of  War. 


War  Department, 
Washington,  January  24,  1912. 

My  Dear  Mr.  Attorney  General:  I  inclose  a  carbon  copy  of  a 
letter  which  I  have  just  written  to  Gov.  Dix,  which  I  think  correctly 
embodies  the  result  of  our  conference  yesterday. 
Very  truly,  yours, 

H.  L.  Stimson, 
Secretary  of  War. 

Hon.  Thomas  Carmody, 

Attorney  General  of  New  YorJc, 

The  Capitol,  Albany,  N.  Y. 


Albany,  January  31,  1912. 

Hon.  Henry  L.  Stimson, 

Secretary  of  War,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Dear  Mr.  Stimson:  Yours  of  the  29th  instant  received.  Your 
letter  states  your  position  with  sufficient  clearness,  so  that  I  have  no 
misunderstanding  as  to  what  it  is.  You  have  also  clearly  stated 
the  position  of  the  State,  as  I  understand  it. 

I  still  hope  the  matter  may  be  determined  without  any  further 
delay  or  complication,  standing  always,  of  course,  upon  the  legal 
principles  heretofore  announced  and  which  you  fully  understand. 

Thanking  you  for  the  courtesy  of  your  letter,  and  with  highest 
personal  regards,  I  am, 

Very  respectfully,  yours,  Thomas  Carmody, 

Attorney  General. 


Albany,  N.  Y.,  January  26,  1912. 

Hon.  H.  L.  Stimson, 

Secretary  of  War,  Washington,  D.  C, 

My  Dear  Secretary:  I  am  in  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  24th 
instant,  inclosing  copy  of  your  letter  of  the  same  date  to  Gov.  Dix. 

I  note  your  statement  in  your  letter  to  the  governor  that,  in  the 
conference  with  you  at  Washington,  I  stated  that  I  saw  no  need  of 
asking  Congress  to  change  the  present  appropriation  act,  but — 

that  the  United  States  might  go  ahead  with  the  construction  of  the  improvement 
under  the  terms  of  that  statute  and  that  the  question  of  the  ownership  of  the  water 
power  thus  secured  could  afterwards  be  determined  by  judicial  decision,  it  being 
understood  that  the  State  did  not  in  any  way  waive  its  claim  to  the  ownership  of 
such  water  power. 


HUDSON  EIVER,  NEW  YORK.  77 

You  ^vdll  doubtless  recall  that  I  asked  you  if  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment based  its  claim  to  the  ownership  of  the  water  upon  the  action 
of  the  canal  board  of  1910  in  undertaking  to  rescind  existing  contracts, 
and  upon  certain  action  heretofore  taken  by  the  State  legislature, 
all  of  which  you  claimed  exterminated  the  riparian  rights  of  the  State 
to  this  water  power,  and  you  answered  in  the  affirmative  and  also" 
stated  that  this  gave  you  the  right  to  construct  the  dam,  and  that 
it  was  the  intention  of  the  Federal  Government  to  proceed  to  do  so, 
regardless  of  the  terms  of  the  appropriation.  I  then  stated,  in  that 
connection,  that  if  this  be  your  position,  it  made  little  difference 
whether  the  terms  of  the  appropriation  were  changed  or  not,  and 
my  understanding  is  that  you  assented  to  this  construction. 

You  will  remember  that  I  stated  in  the  conversation  to  which  you 
refer  in  your  letter  to  Gov.  Dix  that  the  State  had  no  disposition  to 

Erevent  or  delay  improvements  in  the  Hudson  River;  that  we  have 
een  anxious  from  the  beginning  to  have  the  work  progressed,  and 
have  frequently  sought  interviews  with,  the  War .  Department  for 
the  purpose  of  amicably  adjusting  any  misunderstandmg  in  regard 
to  the  respective  rights  and  duties  of  the  Federal  and  State  Govern- 
ments, i  stated  further  that  we  were  ready  to  build  the  dam  when 
the  comphcations  with  the  Federal  Government  would  be  out  of  the 
wav,  and  that  if  the  Federal  Government  undertakes  to  build  the 
dam  and  to  impound  the  waters  and  to  control  the  power  and  to 
claim  the  revenue  from  it,  it  must  justify  its  act  under  its  constitu- 
tional powers.  I  informed  you  specifically  that  the  State  waived 
no  rights,  conceded  none  of  its  claims,  but  stood  upon  what  the  State 
believes  to  be  its  rights,  and  that  if  previous  legislatures  or  canal 
boards  have  undertaken  to  waive  any  of  these  rights  or  to  ideld 
them  to  the  Federal  Government,  the  present  administration  desired 
to  repudiate  such  a  policy  and  to  allow  the  Federal  Government  to 
proceed  no  further  upon  the  implied  consent  of  the  State. 

I  may  further  say  that  the  present  administration  has  at  all  times 
consistently  opposed  the  right  of  the  Federal  Government  to  appro- 
priate the  water  power  of  the  State  of  New  York.  The  State  ad- 
ministration believes  such  a  purpose  is  manifested  in  its  treatment 
of  the  Troy  dam  question.  Tliis  is  not  an  isolated  case  of  the  pohcy 
of  the  Federal  Government.  It  has  extended  this  pohcy  to  the 
State's  riparian  rights  in  the  Niagara  River,  and  has  attempted  to 
regulate  by  congressional  action,  the  manner  in  which  the  State 
shall  enjoy  the  water  power  w^liicli  belongs  to  the  State  in  that  river, 
and  has  undertaken  to  give  permits  to  private  owners,  approved  by 
the  Secretary  of  War,  for  the  enjoyment  of  the  power  from  which 
the  State  should  receive  valuable  revenues. 

If  this  policy  is  continued,  it  ^vill  be  against  the  protest  of  the 
State  administration,  and  if  it  is  carried  out  the  Federal  Government 
must  undertake  to  justify  it  under  the  law. 

Thanking  you  for  the  courtesy  of  your  letter  and  with  assurances 
of  my  high  regards,  I  am, 

Very  truly,  yours,  Thomas  Carmody, 

Attorney  General. 


78  HUDSOIT  KIVER,  NEW  YORK. 

January  24,  1912. 

Hon.  John  A.  Dix, 

Governor  of  New  YorJc,  Albany,  N.  Y. 

My  Dear  Gov.  Dix:  Attorney  General  Carmody  and  State  En- 
gineer Bensel  appeared  yesterday  and  we  had  a  conference  over 
the  matter  which  you  and  I  discussed  on  Saturday.  Mr.  Carmody 
stated  that  the  State  disclaimed  any  power  to  prevent  the  United 
States  from  going  ahead  and  making  the  improvement  in  question  in 
the  Hudson  Kiver,  including  the  building  of  the  dam  and  locks,  but 
that  the  State  of  New  York  claimed  the  right  to  any  surplus  water 
power  which  might  be  created  by  such  improvement.  He  stated  that 
he  therefore  saw  no  need  of  asking  Congerss  to  change  the  present 
appropriation  act,  but  that  the  United  States  might  go  ahead  with  the 
construction  of  the  improvement  under  the  terms  of  that  statute,  and 
that  the  question  of  the  ownership  of  the  water  power  thus  created 
could  afterwards  be  determined  by  judicial  decision,  it  being  under- 
stood that  the  State  did  not  in  any  way  waive  its  claim  of  ownership 
in  such  water  power. 

I  see  no  objection  to  this  plan,  and  so  told  Mr.  Carmody.  I  am 
willing  to  say  further  that,  while  in  my  opinion  the  United  States  will 
be  the  owner  of  all  of  the  water  power  which  may  be  created  by  this 
improvement  to  navigation  erected  by  the  United  States,  neverthe- 
less, in  case  the  amount  of  the  water  power  thus  produced  shall 
eventually  prove  to  be  more  than  sufficient  to  pay  reasonable  interest 
and  sinking  fund  charges  upon  the  expenditures  made  by  the  United 
States  in  this  improvement,  I  see  no  objection  to  the  United  States 
collecting  and  turning  over  the  proceeds  of  any  surplus  be3^ond  such 
amount  to  the  State  of  New  York  for  the  benefit  of  the  people  of  the 
State.  Should  3^ou  desire  to  make  application  to  Congress  for  this 
purpose,  I,  if  in  office,  will  be  glad  to  make  such  statement  in  behalf 
of  your  application.  But,  as  I  have  stated  in  my  letter  to  you  of 
January  19, 1  regard  this  question  as  academic,  because  I  am  iiiformed 
by  the  engineers  that  the  amount  of  water  power  which  will  be  created 
by  the  improvement  will  not  nearly  be  sufficient  to  pay  such  interest 
and  sinking  fund  charges  upon  the  amount  necessary  to  make  the  im- 
provement. 

In  accordance  with  the  understanding  arrived  at  yesterday,  I  am 
directing  the  engineers  to  proceed  at  once  with  the  work  on  the  entire 
improvement. 

Very  respectfully,  H.  L.  Stimson, 

Secretary  of  War. 


January  29,  1912. 

My  Dear  Mr.  Attorney  General:  I  have  received  your  letter  of 
January  26.  I  do  not  think  there  can  be  any  future  misunderstand- 
ing as  to  my  legal  position  ^  in  view  of  my  letter  of  January  19  to  the 
governor  nor  of  your  legal  position  in  view  of  your  letter  of  the  26th 
to  me.  I  do  not  think  you  quite  understood  me.  however,  in  our  per- 
sonal conference  if  you  understood  me  to  state  that  it  was  the  inten- 
tion of  the  Federal  Government  to  proceed  to  construct  the  dam 
regardless  of  the  terms  of  the  appropriation.  My  position,  on  the 
contrary,  was,  as  stated  in  my  letter  to  the  governor,  that — 

(1)  That  the  Federal  Government  had  the  absolute  right  to  make  this  improve- 
ment for  the  benefit  of  navigation  in  the  Hudson  River,  including  the  right,  if  it 
desired,  to  tear  down  the  present  dam  and  build  a  new  one  regardless  of  the  Stsfte. 


HUDSON"  EIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


79 


(2)  That  it  had  undertaken,  however,  to  make  the  improvement  on  condition 
that  the  State  extinguish  all  existing  water-power  rights  or  privileges  affected  by 
the  improvement. 

(3)  That  the  State's  action  of  November  22,  1910,  had  adequately  fulfilled  this 
condition. 

(4)  That  this  being  the  case  there  was  nothing  for  me  to  do  but  to  proceed  under 
the  mandate  of  the  appropriation  act  and  make  the  improvement,  including  the 
building  of  the  dam,  according  to  the  terms  of  that  act. 

(5)  That  one  of  the  conditions  of  this  act  was  that  any  surplus  water  power  pro- 
duced by  the  work  of  the  Federal  Government  should  be  applied  to  the  reduction 
of  the  cost  of  that  improvement,  and  that  as  to  the  constitutional  power  of  the  Fed- 
eral Government  to  so  apply  this  product  of  its  work  I  had  no  doubt. 

I  think  all  of  the  foregoing  points  are  fully  covered  by  my  letter  to 
the  governor  of  January  19.  and.  on  the  other  hand,  at  my  conference 
with  you  no  doubt  was  left  in  my  mind  that  you.  on  behalf  of  the 
State  government,  waived  none  of  the  rights  or  claims  of  the  State  as 
understood  by  you. 

Believe  me^  with  sincere  regards,  to  be 

Very  respectfully,  yours,  Henry  L.  Stimson. 

Hon.  Thomas  F.  Carmody, 

Attorney  General  of  the  State  of  New  Yorlc, 

Albany,  N.  Y. 


War  Department, 
Office  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers, 

Washington,  February  12, 1912. 

Memorandum  for  the  Secretary  of  War  in  re  the  construction  of 
the  lock  and  dam  at  Troy,  N.  Y.: 

1.  To  meet  certain  conditions  imposed  by  Congress  in  the  river  and 
harbor  act  of  June  25,  1910,  in  adopting  the  project  for  improving 
Hudson  RiA'er,  the  New  York  State  Canal  Board,  under  date  of 
November  22,  1910,  passed  a  resolution  formally  abandoning  the 
existing  lock  and  dam  at  Troy  and  authorizing  their  destruction, 
this  action  purporting  to  carry  with  it  the  legal  extinguishment  of 
all  existing  water-power  rights  and  privileges  affected  by  the  pro- 
posed improvement.  Subsequently  the  State  canal  board,  having 
been  reorganized,  at  a  meeting  held  April  26,  1911,  passed  a  resolu- 
tion designed  to  rescind  the  aforesaid  action  of  the  former  board, 
and  this  resolution  was  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  War  Depart- 
ment by  the  governor  of  the  State,  by  letter  of  April  28,  1911. 

2.  The  later  resolution  indicated  an  intention  on  the  part  of  the 
State  to  retain  possession  and  control  of  the  existing  State  structures, 
and,  in  effect,  requested  that  the  War  Department  modify  the  Fed- 
eral project  for  the  improvement  of  the  Hudson  River  by  eliminating 
that  portion  which  contemplated  the  construction  by  the  United 
States  of  a  new  lock  and  dam,  in  order  that  this  portion  of  the  work 
might  be  done  by  the  State. 

3.  On  account  of  the  changed  attitude  of  the  State,  evidenced  by 
this  resolution,  and  with  a  view  to  affording  ample  opportunity  for 
the  most  thorough  consideration  of  the  questions  springing  there- 
from, the  Acting  Chief  of  Engineers,  by  indorsement  of  July  20,  1911, 
presented  the  case  to  the  Secretary  of  War  with  recommendation 
that  the  following  course  of  action  be  adopted: 

1.  That  work  on  that  portion  of  the  project  which  involves  the  construction  of  a 
new  lock  and  dam  to  replace  the  existing  State  structures,  including  the  extension 


80 


HUDSON  EIVEK,  NEW  YORK. 


of  the  navigable  channel  of  the  river  tlirough  said  dam  to  connect  with  the  State 
canal,  be  postponed  until  Congress  shall  have  had  opportunity  to  again  consider 
the  case  and  to  enact  such  further  legislation  as  may  be  deemed  advisable  and 
desirable. 

2.  That  so  much  of  the  work  of  rock  excavation  and  dredging  to  secure  the  project 
depth  and  width  of  channel  from  deep  water  in  the  lower  river  up  to  Waterford,  as 
is  not  dependent  upon  the  construction  of  the  new  lock  and  dam,  or  the  destruction 
of  the  existing  structures,  be  continued  and  carried  forward  as  the  interests  of  the 
United  States  may  require. 

3.  That  the  authorities  of  the  State  of  New  York  be  informed  that,  under  existing 
law,  it  will  not  be  permissible  for  them  to  enter  upon  the  construction  of  the  proposed 
new  lock  and  dam  at  Troy  until  the  sanction  of  Congress  shall  have  been  obtained; 
that  it  is  the  intention  of  the  War  Department  to  submit  to  Congress,  at  the  regular 
session  in  December  next,  a  full  report  upon  the  questions  that  have  arisen  regarding 
this  part  of  the  projected  work,  and  to  defer  active  operations  thereon  until  that  body 
shall  have  considered  the  facts  and  indicated  its  further  wishes  in  the  premises;  and 
that,  while  the  department  will  enter  no  opposition  to  appropriate  legislation  by 
Congress  authorizing  the  State  authorities  to  execute  this  part  of  the  work  at  the 
expense  of  the  State,  the  action  necessary  to  secure  such  authorization  should  be  inaug. 
urated  by  the  State  through  its  representatives. 

4.  A  partial  decision  by  the  Secretary  of  War  on  the  foregoing 
recommendation  was  announced  in  a  memorandum  addressed  to  the 
Chief  of  Engineers  under  date  of  September  15,  1911,  as  follows: 

I  approve  of  so  much  of  the  report  of  the  Acting  Chief  of  Engineers  dated  July  20, 
1911,  as  recommends:  "That  so  much  of  the  work  of  rock  excavation  and  dredging  to 
secure  the  project  depth  and  width  of  channel  from  deep  water  in  the  lower  river  up  to 
Waterford  as  is  not  dependent  upon  the  construction  of  the  new  lock  and  dam  or  the 
destruction  of  the  existing  structures  be  continued  and  carried  forward  as  the  inter- 
ests of  the  United  States  may  require,"  and  I  direct  that  such  work  be  proceeded  with 
at  once. 

The  work  on  that  portion  of  the  project  which  involves  the  construction  of  a  new  lock 
and  dam  to  replace  the  existing  State  structures  should  be  postponed  until  I  shall  have 
further  time  to  determine  whether  to  adopt  the  recommendation  of  the  Actijig  Chief 
of  Engineers  and  submit  the  matter  to  Congress,  or  proceed  with  the  work  as  originally 
authorized,  on  the  assumption  that  the  action  of  the  State  canal  board  of  April  28  [26], 
1911,  was  void  and  ineffective. 

5.  The  questions  for  determination  have  been  held  under  advise- 
ment by  the  Secretary  of  War  since  the  issuance  of  the  foregoing 
memorandum,  and  it  now  appears  that  he  has  reached  a  conclusion 
thereon  which  he  has  embodied  in  a  letter  addressed,  under  date  of 
the  19th  ultimo,  to  the  governor  of  New  York,  and  which  is  substan- 
tially as  follows : 

(a)  That,  by  virtue  of  its  dominant  control  over  the  Hudson  River  as  a  highway  for 
national  commerce,  the  Federal  Government  is  vested  with  the  power  to  improve  the 
navigation  of  that  river  in  accordance  with  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  project 
adopted  by  Congress  in  the  river  and  harbor  act  of  June  25,  1910,  which  provides,  inter 
alia,  for  the  construction  of  a  new  lock  and  dam  at  Troy,  to  replace  the  existing  State 
structures;  and  that  this  includes  the  right  to  reimburse  itself  for  moneys  expended 
on  the  improvement,  by  the  lease  or  sale  of  any  water  power  incidentally  created  by 
the  new  structures. 

(6)  That  the  action  of  the  New  York  Canal  Board  set  forth  in  the  resolution  adopted 
November  22, 1910,  adequately  met  the  requirements  of  Congress  with  reference  to  the 
abandonment  and  destruction  of  the  existing  State  structures,  and  the  extinguishment 
of  all  existing  water-power  rights  and  privileges  affected  by  the  proposed  improvement; 
that  it  was. beyond  the  power  of  the  State  to  subsequently  revoke  this  action;  and  that 
the  resolution  of  the  State  canal  board  adopted  April  26,  1911,  designed  to  accomplish 
such  revocation,  is,  therefore,  void  and  ineffective. 

(c)  That  the  War  Department  must  carry  out  the  express  mandate  of  Congress  and 
proceed  with  the  work  with  which  it  is  charged,  including  the  construction  of  the  new 
lock  and  dam  at  Troy. 


HUDSON  EIVER,  NEAV  YOEK. 


81 


6.  Up  to  the  present  the  work  of  improvement  has  been  carried 
forward,  and  ail  the  operations  of  this  department  have  been  con- 
ducted, in  strict  conformity  to  the  instructions  given  in  the  memo- 
randum of  September  15,  1911 ;  that  is,  the  work  has  been  confined  to 
improving  the  channel  below  the  Troy  dam. 

7.  I  now  have  th^  honor  to  recommend  that  I  be  authorized  to 
communicate  the  foregoing  conclusion  of  the  Secretary  of  War  to  the 
district  engineer  officer,  and  to  instruct  him  to  proceed  with  the 
entire  work  in  accordance  with  paragraph  (c)  thereof. 

W.  H.  BlXBY, 

CJiie^  oj  Engineers,  United  States  Army. 


Such  authority  is  hereby  granted. 


[Second  indorsement. 


H.  L.  Stimson, 
Secretary  of  War. 


War  Department, 
Office  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers, 

Washington,  February  17,  1912. 

Respectfully  referred  to  Col.  W.  M.  Black,  Corps  of  Engineers,  for 
his  information  and  guidance. 

By  command  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers: 

*  E.  N.  Johnston, 

Captain,  Corps  oj  Engineers, 

[Third  indorsement.! 

United  States  Engineer  Office, 
New  York,  N.  Y.,  February  23,  1912. 

1.  Respectfully  returned  to  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  United  States 
Army,  the  contents  having  been  noted. 

2.  Until  action  has  been  taken  by  higher  authority  on  the  reports 
previously  submitted  relating  to  the  location  of  the  dam  and  of  the 
channels  in  its  vicinity,  this  office  is  unable  to  proceed. 

W.  M.  Black, 
Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army, 

54559— S.  Doc.  887,  62-2  6 


61st  Congress,  2d  Session,  House  of  Representatives,  Document  No.  719. 


HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


LETTEE 

FROM 

THE  SECRETARY  OF  WAR, 

TRANSMITTING, 

WITH  A  LETTER  FROM  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS,  REPORTS  OF 
EXAMINATIONS  AND  SURVEY  OF  HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK, 
AT  VARIOUS  LOCALITIES. 


February  25, 1910. — Referred  to  the  Committee  on  Rivers  and  Harbors  and  ordered 

to  be  printed,  with  illustrations. 


War  DEPAR'niENT, 
Washington,  February  25,  1910. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewitii  a  letter  from  the 
Chief  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army,  dated  24th  instant,  together  with 
copies  of  reports  of  Col.  W.  M.  Black,  Corps  of  Engineers,  on  pre- 
liminary examinations  of  the  Hudson  River,  New  York,  at  various 
localities;  also  copy  of  a  preliminary  report  of  that  officer  on  survey 
of  the  river  at  those  localities,  made  by  him  in  compliance  with  the 
provisions  of  the  river  and  harbor  act  of  March  3,  1909. 
Very  respectfully, 

J.  M.  Dickinson, 

Secretary  of  War. 

The  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 


W^AR  Department, 
Office  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers, 

Washington,  February  24,  1910. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  herewith,  for  transmission  to 
Congress,  reports  with  maps,  by  Col.  W.  M.  Black,  Corps  of  Engineers, 
on  preliminary  examinations  of  Hudson  River,  New  York,  called  for 
by  items  in  the  river  and  harbor  act  approved  March  3,  1909,  as 
follows : 

[May  5,  1909]  With  a  view  to  providing  a  channel  not  less  than  200  fe€)t  wide  and 
12  feet  deep  at  all  stages  from  deep  water  in  the  lower  river  to  Waterford,  including  a 
lock  and  dam  at  Troy  suitable  in  size  for  all  probable  purposes  of  navigation  and  com- 
merce to  and  from  the  barge  canal.  * 


82 


HUDSON  EIVEE,  NEW  YORK. 


83 


[July  31,  1909.]  At  Troy,  with  a  view  to  widening  the  channel  below  Adams  street. 

[August  2,  1909.]  At  Albany,  with  a  view  to  providing  additional  area  of  navigable 
depth  at  the  mouth  of  Island  Creek  and  vicinity,  for  the  benefit  of  general  commerce 
and  the  making  up  of  barge  tows. 

[August  2,  1909.]  At  Coeymans,  with  a  view  to  securing  a  suitable  width  and  depth 
in  the  channel  along  the  village  front  behind  the  government  dike. 

Also  a  preliminary  report  dated  January  10,  1910,  by  Colonel  Black 
on  survey  of  the  river  at  these  localities. 

The  existing  project  for  improvement  of  Hudson  River  provides  for 
a  channel  12  feet  deep  and  150  feet  wide  from  the  State  dam  to  the 
foot  of  Jacob  street,  Troy;  thence  gradually  increasing  in  width  to  400 
feet  at  the  foot  of  Broadway,  Troy ;  thence  400  feet  wide  to  Coxsackie. 

The  district  officer  presents  in  his  preliminary  report  on  survey 
a  plan  for  further  improvement,  the  object  being  to  afford  suitable 
navigation  facilities  for  the  commerce  of  the  Hudson  River  and  that 
which  is  anticipated  from  the  completion  of  the  New  York  State 
canals.  If  this  part  of  the  river  over  which  the  commerce  of  the 
canal  must  pass  is  to  be  improved  to  meet  the  development  of  the 
state  waterways  and  finished  in  time  for  the  opening  of  the  Cham- 
plain  Canal,  work  must  be  begun  as  soon  as  practicable,  as  three 
working  seasons  will  be  required  to  complete  a  new  lock  and  dam 
with  channels  of  approach.  Tlie  district  ofRcer  has  therefore  sub- 
mitted this  report  m  advance  of  complete  detailed  studies  and  esti- 
mates, but  he  states  that  while  the  estimates  are  approximate  he 
believes  they  are  sufficient  to  cover  the  work  proposed,  and  that  the 
further  study  which  will  be  necessary  before  the  work  is  undertaken 
will  not  seriously  affect  the  general  plans  or  estimates. 

The  plan  submitted  contemplates  the  construction  of  a  new  lock 
and  dam  in  the  vicinity  of  Trov  about  1,400  feet  north  of  the  existing 
State  lock  and  dam,  which  will  be  removed,  and  the  excavation  of  a 
channel  from  deep  water  in  the  lower  river  to  Waterford  12  feet  deep 
at  all  stages.  Below  Trov  the  general  width  of  the  channel  is  to  be 
400  feet,  except  at  Albany,  where  it  widens  into  a  basin.  In  the 
vicinity  of  Troy  the  width  above  the  dam  is  to  be  200  feet,  widening 
into  a  bnsin  just  below  the  dam.  For  a  short  distance  below  this 
basin  there  will  be  a  double  channel,  one  on  either  side  of  Adams 
Island,  with  widths,  respectively,  of  150  and  200  feet.  Between  the 
Delaware  and  the  Hudson  and  Congress  street  bridges  the  width  is 
to  be  500  feet,  below  which  it  narrows  to  the  proposed  general  width 
of  400  feet. 

This  work  will  extend  nearlv  as  far  south  as  Hudson,  and  includes 
dredging,  rock  excavation,  construction  of  a  lock,  dam,  and  mooring 
piers,  and  removal  of  the  old  lock  and  dam,  all  at  an  estimated  cost 
of  $5,186,064.  The  district  officer  considers  the  improvement 
worthy  of  being  undertaken  by  the  United  States,  and  states  that  if 
the  project  is  approved  and  work  authorized  provision  should  be 
made  for  executing  it  under  the  continuing-contract  system,  the 
amount  required  for  the  lock  and  dam  to  be  provided  by  a  cash 
appropriation  of  $300,000,  and  the  balance  to  be  made  available  within 
two  years  in  order  to  insure  completion  within  three  working  seasons. 
An  initial  appropriation  of  $1,000,000  is  required  for  the  work  below 
the  dam. 

These  reports  have  been  considered  by  the  Board  of  Engineers 
for  Rivers  and  Harbors,  and  in  its  opinion  it  is  advisable  for  the 


84 


HUDSON  KIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


General  Government  to  undertake  the  improvement  of  the  Hudson 
River  from  deep  water  up  to  Waterford,  provided  all  existing  water 
power  rights  or  privileges  affected  by  the  improvement  are  extin- 
guished by  the  State  of  New  York,  it  being  understood,  however, 
that  both  plans  and  estimates  are  general  in  character  and  require 
further  careful  study,  particularly  with  reference  to  the  low-water- 
plane  and  its  bearing  upon  the  elevation  of  the  lower  sill  of  the  lock. 
The  Board  further  states  that  the  cost  of  maintenance  of  this  improve- 
ment will  probably  not  be  excessive. 

If  it  be  the  polic}^  of  Congress  to  make  the  connection  of  the  navi- 
gable channel  of  the  Hudson  River  with  the  State  canal  by  extending 
the  former  channel  through  and  above  the  State  dam  at  Troy,  and 
by  the  construction  of  a  new  lock  and  dam,  I  agree  with  the  district 
officer,  who  is  also  division  engineer,  and  with  the  Board  of  Engineers 
for  Rivers  and  Harbors  that  Hudson  River  is  worthy  of  improvement 
in  this  connection  at  the  cost  specified. 

In  the  o]3inion  of  the  district  officer,  and  the  Board,  the  harbor  at 
Coeymans  is  not  worthy  of  improvement  by  the  United  States,  and 
I  concur  in  this  opinion. 

The  district  officer  states  that  it  is  probable  that  there  will  be  sur- 
plus water  sufficient  to  develop  at  least  about  1,400  horsepower  at 
the  new  dam,  a  small  portion  of  which  can  be  used  for  operating  and 
lighting  the  lock,  and  the  remainder  can  be  sold.  He  recommends 
that  if  the  improvement  be  adopted  the  Secretary  of  War  be  author- 
ized to  grant  leases  or  licenses;  (a)  for  the  use  of  the  surplus  water 
for  water  power  created  by  the  dam  at  such  a  rate  and  on  such  condi- 
tions and  for  such  periods  of  time  as  may  seem  to  be  just,  equitable, 
and  expedient,  the  said  leases  or  licenses  to  be  limited  to  the  use 
of  the  surplus  water  not  required  for  navigation  and  to  a  period  not 
exceeding  twenty  years ;  (6)  for  the  occupation  of  such  land  belonging  to 
the  United  States  on  the  Hudson  River  as  may  be  required  for  power 
flumes,  or  other  industrial  purposes  not  inconsistent  with  the  require- 
ments of  navigation;  (c)  and  for  the  construction  of  such  work  or 
works  appurtenant  to  the  dam  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  develop- 
ment and  use  of  said  water  power. 

The  district  officer  has  been  informed  by  the  canal  board  that  it  is 
ready  to  abandon  the  present  lock  and  dam  as  soon  as  new  structures 
are  constructed  by  the  United  States,  and  that  the  project  submitted 
meets  with  the  approval  of  the  Advisory  Board  of  Canal  Engineers. 

The  matter  of  cooperation  by  the  local  interests  in  meeting  the 
expense  of  the  proposed  improvement  has  been  given  consideration 
by  the  district  ofhcer  and  the  amounts  deemed  equitable  to  be 
required  are  for  Troy  and  Albany,  $420,559  and  $105,000,  respectively, 
to  cover  the  cost  of  additional  harbor  facilities  provided  for  at  these 
localities  in  the  above  estimate. 

Very  respectfully,  W.  L.  Marshall, 

Chief  of  Engineers y  U.  S.  Army. 

The  Secretary  of  War. 


HUDSON  BIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


85 


PRELIMINARY  EXAMINATION  OF  HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK,  IN 
THE  LOWER  RIVER  TO  WATERFORD. 

United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  York  City,  May  5,  1909. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  the  following  report  upon  the 
preliminary  examination  of  the  Hudson  River  with  a  view  to  pro- 
viding a  channel  not  less  than  200  feet  wide  and  12  feet  deep 
at  all  stages  from  deep  water  in  the  lower  river  to  Waterford, 
including  a  lock  and  dam  at  Troy  suitable  in  size  for  all  probable 
purposes  of  navigation  and  commerce  to  and  from  the  barge  canal, 
as  required  under  the  provisions  of  section  13  of  act  of  Congress 
approved  March  3,  1909,  *'to  provide  for  the  repair,  maintenance, 
and  preservation  of  public  works  on  rivers  and  harbors,  and  for  other 
purposes.'' 

The  original  project  for  the  improvement  of  Hudson  River,  adopted 
in  1834,  modified  in  1852,  and  again  in  18G6,  had  for  its  object  the 
securing  of  a  navigable  channel  of  suflicient  width  and  9  feet  depth 
between  Troy  and  Albany,  and  11  feet  between  Albany  and  JNew 
Baltimore.    In  carrying  out  this  work  $1,667,938  was  expended. 

The  existing  project,  approved  July  13,  1892,  for  which  a  revised 
estimate  was  submitted  to  Congress  February,  1898,  and  adopte-d 
March  3,  1899,  provides  for  a  12-foot  channel.  150  feet  wide  from  tht 
State  dam  to  the  foot  of  Jacob  street,  Troy;  thence  gradually  increas- 
ing in  width  to  400  feet  at  the  foot  of  Broadway,  Troy;  thence  400 
feet  wide  to  Coxsackie  at  an  estimated  cost  of  $4,343,863.  The 
amount  expended  under  this  project  to  the  close  of  the  fiscal  vear 
ending  June  30,  190S,  was  $3,560,252.58,  of  which  $279,186.90* was 
applied  to  maintenance  of  improvement. 

The  result  of  the  above  expenditure  was  to  provide  a  channel  11 
feet  deep  with  a  width  of  200  feet  except  at  the  bridges  at  Albany,  and 
generally  12  feet  deep  for  a  minimum  width  of  .50  feet  from  Coxsackie 
to  the  foot  of  Broadway,  Troy;  of  10  feet  for  a  minimum  width  of  100 
feet  except  at  the  drawspan  of  the  Delaware  and  Hudson  Company's 
bridge  at  Troy,  to  the  foot  of  Rensjelaer  street,  Troy;  thence  8 2-  feet 
to  the  sloop  lock. 

The  portion  of  the  river  now  under  improvement  is  a  stretch  be- 
ginnin^i:  at  Coxsackie  and  extending  to  the  State  dam  at  Troy.  In 
its  natural  condition  the  navigable  channel  was  narrow  and  crooked, 
with  a  depth  of  12  feet  and  over,  below  Coxsackie;  from  Coxsackie  to 
New  Baltimore  of  11  feet;  from  New  Baltimore  to  Albany  of  7i  foot, 
and  from  Albany  to  State  dam  of  4  feet. 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  existing  project  provides  for  a  depth  of 
12  feet  at  mean  low  v/ater.  At  certain  stages  of  the  river,  the  avail- 
able depth  of  the  improved  channel  is  about  2  feet  less.  The 
navigation  of  the  river  above  the  State  dam  is  confined  almost 
entirely  to  the  commerce  passing  through  the  Champlain  Canal, 
which,  in  1904,  amounted  to  523,244  tons.  To  provide  for  this  com- 
merce there  is  a  lock  and  dam  known  as  the  '^Sloop  lock,"  130  feet 
long,  28  feet  wide,  having  a  lift  of  10  feet,  and  depth  of  water  over 
lower  miter  sill  of  somewhat  less  than  5  feet.  Between  the  State 
dam  and  Waterford,  a  distance  of  2.6  miles,  the  navigation  is  through 
the  pool  of  the'State  dam,  with  an  available  depth  of  about  10  feet. 

Between  Troy  and  New  York,  the  depth  of  the  present  project  is 
not  sufficient  to  accommodate  the  existing  commerce  properly. 


86 


HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


Work  under  the  project  is  not  completed,  and  even  where  completed 
shoals  are  forming  from  time  to  time,  especially  during  the  winter 
season  when  navigation  is  closed,  and  delays  to  commerce  by  the 
grounding  of  craft  occur.  The  large  passenger  boats  at  certain 
stages  of  the  river  have  their  keels  dangerously  near  the  bottom,  and 
on  one  or  two  occasions  within  the  past  year  obstructions  have  been 
struck  when  good  fortune  alone  prevented  a  disaster  and  loss  of  human 
life. 

The  State  is  now  spending  a  very  large  sum  of  money  in  the  con- 
struction of  the  barge  canal,  which  will  afford  a  navigable  depth  of 
12  feet.  One  terminus  of  this  canal  is  now  located  in  the  Hudson 
River  at  Waterford.  The  tonnage  which  will  pass  through  the  new 
canal  is  not  known,  but  will  probably  exceed  that  of  the  Erie  Canal 
in  its  best  day,  or  about  3,600,000  tons  annually,  with  an  estimated 
value  of  $108,000,000. 

It  is  evident  that  to  utilize  this  canal  it  will  be  necessary  to  deepen 
the  channel  of  the  upper  river  as  far  as  Waterford,  so  as  to  afford  a 
minimum  navigable  depth  of  12  feet  at  all  stages.  This  will  require 
the  formation  of  a  channel  about  14 J  feet  deep  at  mean  low  water,  or 
a  deepening  of  2 J  feet  below  that  given  under  the  existing  project. 
This  deepening  will  have  to  be  provided  by  river  regulation,  dredg- 
ing and  rock  removal,  the  raismg  of  the  State  dam,  and  the  con- 
struction of  a  new  lock.  It  is  possible  that  a  portion  of  this  work 
should  be  done  by  the  State. 

To  make  the  project  for  this  new  work  will  require  additional  sur- 
veys and  a  number  of  rock  borings,  together  with  further  investi- 
gations of  the  regimen  of  the  river.  The  estimated  cost  of  this 
work,  together  with  that  of  the  preparation  of  the  project,  is  $10,000. 

The  commerce  of  the  year  1907  was  as  follows: 


Class. 


General  merchandise  

Coal  and  other  fuel  

Building  and  road  materials 

Manufactures  

Minerals  and  products  

Farm  products  

Ice  

Total  


Tons. 

Value. 

435, G40 

S41,544.98fi 

491,289 

2,240,801 

721,770 

6, 055, 438 

87.4J9 

1,606.543 

28,0G1 

137.482 

3G1.039 

13,870,524 

755, 950 

1,387,957 

2,881,168 

66,853,731 

Number  of  passengers  carried,  1,266,008. 

In  my  opinion,  the  river  is  worthy  of  improvement  by  the  General 
Government. 

Very  respectfully,  W.  M.  Black, 

Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers. 

The  Chief  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army. 
(Through  the  Division  Engineer.) 

[Second  indorsement.] 

Northeast  Division,  Engineer  Office, 

Washington,  D.  C,  May  13,  1909. 

Respectfully  forwarded  to  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  U.^S.  Army. 

In  my  opinion  the  Hudson  River  is  worthy  of  improvement  by 
the  General  Government  to  the  extent  indicated  in  the  act  of  March 
3,  1909.    Without  such  improvement  the  New  York  State  barge 


HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


87 


canal  may  not,  when  completed,  be  used  to  its  full  capacity.  In 
this  a  depth  of  12  feet  in  trunk  and  over  miter  sills  is  contemplated; 
a  like  depth  at  all,  including  extraordinary  low  stages  should  be 
available  in  the  Hudson  River.  The  width  of  navigable  channel  in 
the  river  should,  if  possible,  be  such  as  will  not  only  accommodate 
both  canal  and  other  river  traffic  but  also  allow  the  latter  to  be  carried 
at  moderate  speeds  mthout  danger  to  shore  structures  and  craft  at 
piers  and  at  anchor. 

It  is  recommended  that  a  survey  and  preparation  of  estimate  of 
cost  be  authorized.  The  survey  will  necessarily  extend  laterally 
beyond  the  limits  of  the  proposed  channel,  since  the  disposition  to 
be  made  of  dredged  material  will  require  much  study.  The  survey 
made  by  the  Board  of  Engineers,  which  reported  October  1,  1891, 
on  the  cost  of  a  12-foot  channel  at  mean  low  water  between  Cox- 
sackie  and  the  State  dam  at  Trov,  and  the  survev  of  the  Hudson 
River,  with  a  view  to  extendmg  the  existmg  project  to  Waterford, 
N.  Y.,  printed  in  H.  Doc.  No.  539,  59th  Cong.,  2d  sess.,  will  not 
suffice  for  present  purposes. 

John  G.  D.  Knight, 

Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers, 

Division  Engineer. 

[Fourth  Indorsement.] 

Board  of  Engineers  for  Rivers  and  Harbors, 

Washington,  D.  C,  May  25,  1909. 

Respectfully  returned  to  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army. 

The  existing  project  for  the  Hudson  River  provides  for  a  12-foot 
channel  150  feet  wide  from  the  State  dam  at  Trov  to  the  foot  of  Jacob 
street,  Troy;  thence  gradually  increasing  in  wicfth  to  400  feet  at  the 
foot  of  Broadway,  Troy;  thence  400  feet  wide  to  Coxsackie.  The 
12-foot  depth  is  below  mean  low  water,  which  is  at  times  as  much  as 
2  feet  above  extreme  low  water. 

The  present  investigation  contemplates  a  channel  not  less  than  200 
feet  wide  and  12  feet  deep  at  all  stages  from  deep  water  in  the  lower 
river  to  Waterford,  including  a  lock  and  dam  at  Troy  suitable  in  size 
for  all  probable  purposes  of  navigation  and  commerce  to  and  from 
the  barge  canal.  A\aterford  is  about  2.6  miles  above  the  State  dam 
at  Troy.  The  present  inquiry,  therefore,  has  in  view  the  widening 
of  the  existing  project  near  its  upper  end,  increasing  its  depth  through- 
out about  2h  feet,  and  extending  it  to  Waterford,  the  principal  object 
apparently  being  to  provide  for  the  prospective  commerce  of  the 
State  barge  canal  as  well  as  that  of  the  Hudson  River. 

As  stated  within,  one  of  the  terminals  of  the  barge  canal  is  at 
Waterford,  and  it  is  essential  in  the  interests  of  general  navigation 
that  a  suitable  and  adequate  connection  between  the  canal  and  river 
be  provided.    Neither  waterway  would  be  complete  without  it. 

Both  the  district  officer  and  the  division  engineer  believe  the  im- 
provement is  desirable,  and  a  survey  estimated  to  cost  $10,000  is 
recommended. 

In  the  opinion  of  the  Board  an  improvement  of  the  nature  of  that 
contemplated  by  the  act  should  be  provided,  and  it  therefore  concurs 
in  recommending  that  a  survey  be  authorized. 
For  the  Board:  ^  ^  Lockwood, 

Colonel,  Corjjs  of  Engineers, 

Senior  Member  of  the  Board. 


88 


HUDSON  RTVER,  NEW  YORK 


[Fifth  indorsement.] 

War  Department, 
Office  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers, 

Washington,  June  1,  1909. 
Respectfully  submitted  to  the  Secretary  of  War. 
This  is  a  report  on  preliminary  examination  of  Hudson  River,  New- 
York,  up  to  Waterford,  authorized  by  the  river  and  harbor  act  of 
March  3,  1909. 

Inviting  attention  to  the  report  of  the  Board  of  Engineers  for  Rivers 
and  Harbors  in  the  preceding  mdorsement,  I  recommend  that  a  survey 
of  the  locality,  as  proposed,  be  authorized. 

W.  L.  Marshall, 
Chief  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army. 

^      [Sixth  indorsement.] 

War  Department,  June  1,  1909. 

Approved  as  recommended  by  the  Chief  of  Engineers. 

Robert  Shaw  Oliver, 
Assistant  Secretary  of  War, 


PRELIMINARY  EXAMINATION  OF  HUDSON   RIVER  AT  TROY, 

NEW  YORK. 

United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  Yorl  City,  July  31,  1909. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  the  following  report  upon  a  pre- 
hminary  examination  of  the  Hudson  River  at  Troy,  with  a  view  to 
widening  the  channel  below  Adams  street,  in  accordance  wdth  the 
provisions  of  section  13  of  the  river  and  harbor  act  approved  March 
3,1909.^ 

The  city  of  Troy  lies  on  the  east  bank  of  the  Hudson  at  the  head 
of  tide-water  navigation  at  the  State  dam,  with  its  southern  limits 
3  miles  down  stream.  Pier  and  bulkhead  lines  have  been  established 
on  both  sides  of  the  river  below  the  dam  within  its  boundaries.  On 
the  west  bank  of  the  river  opposite  Troy  are  the  towns  of  Green 
Island  and  Watervliet. 

Beginning  at  the  State  dam  and  going  south,  the  improved  channel 
of  the  river  lies  close  to  the  Troy  bank  for  a  distance  of  about  IJ 
miles  to  Ferry  street,  from  which  point  it  crosses  the  river  diagonally 
and  does  not  reach  the  east  bank  until  at  a  point  about  2^  miles  below 
the  State  dam.  After  the  channel  leaves  the  east  shore  line,  the  area 
of  the  river  bed  between  the  improved  channel  and  the  shore  varies 
from  nothing  to  about  250  feet  in  width  and  is  generally  of  hard 
material.  The  projected  channel  way  is  400  feet  wide  from  the  south 
end  of  the  city  to  a  point  opposite  Broadway,  about  miles  below 
the  State  dam,  where  it  begins  to  narrow,  and  from  Jacob  street,  about 
three-fourths  of  a  mile  below  the  dam,  to  the  State  dam  it  is  150  feet 
wide. 

At  the  State  dam  the  width  of  the  entire  river  is"  1,200  feet;  at  the 
Delaware  and  Hudson  bridge,  eight-tenths  of  a  mile  below  the  dam, 
the  width  of  the  river  is  1,450  feet,  narrowing  from  there  to  State 
street,  about  IJ  miles  below  the  dam,  where  it  is  700  feet;  it  then 
narrows  to  Adams  street,  w^here  the  width  is  600  feet,  gradually 
broadening  to  825  feet  opposite  Monroe  street,  2^  miles  below  the 


HUDSON  filVEE,  IST^W  YORK 


89 


dam,  and  narrowing  again  to  650  feet  just  north  of  the  southern  city 
limits. 

Below  the  Delaware  and  Hudson  bridge  the  improved  channel  has 
a  mean  low- water  depth  of  12  feet  and  over,  though  this  depth  for 
the  last  mile  of  the  city  extends  for  a  channel  width  of  only  230  feet, 
the  projected  improvement  not  having  been  completed  in  this  reach. 
The  conditions  are  shown  on  the  accompanying  map." 

It  will  be  noted  that  north  of  the  Delaware  and  Hudson  Company's 
bridge  the  waterway  of  navigable  depth  is  so  narrow  that  a  large 
boat  could  not  turn  in  it,  and  that  if  vessels  were  moored  to  the 
wharves  it  would  be  difficult  for  a  tow  to  pass  them;  and  that  from 
Ferry  street  southward  vessels  of  any  draft  can  not  reach  the  wharves 
except  at  high  water,  and  if  moored  to  the  wharves  there  they  wouLd 
be  left  aground  on  an  irregular  hard  bottom  during  the  low  stages. 
In  other  words,  the  improvement  of  the  river  in  the  vicinity  of  Troy 
has  been  mainly  with  a  view  to  affording  facilities  for  through  traffic, 
and  the  condition  of  the  river  is  such  that  Troy  has  practically  no 
harbor. 

•Troy  is  essentially  a  manufacturing  city,  with  a  population  of  at 
least  80,000  people.  The  assessed  valuation  of  the  property  is  upward 
of  $56,000,000.  The  towns  of  Green  Island  and  Watervliet,  opposite 
Troy,  have  a  combined  population  of  over  19,000,  and  carefully  com- 
piled statistics  show  tliat  the  commerce  of  Troy  by  water  during 
1908  amounted  to  521,000  tons,  with  an  estimated  value  of  S24, 100,000. 
The  total  number  of  people  carried  on  the  ferries  and  steamboats  of 
Troy  during  the  year  1908  was  reported  as  2,392,000.  The  railway 
tonnage  in  and  out  of  Troy  in  1908,  from  the  best  figures  obtainable, 
was  768,000  tons,  valued  at  about  $64,000,000.  Troy  is  entered  by 
the  New  York  Central  and  Hudson  lliver  Railroad,  the  Boston  and 
Maine  Railroad,  and  the  Delaware  and  Hudson  Railroad.  The  pop- 
ulation of  the  counties  of  the  New  England  States  bordering  on  these 
roads  whose  natural  and  shortest  line  of  water  transportation  is 
through  Troy  is  592,000.  The  above  figures  are  only  a  few  tending 
to  show  the  importance  of  the  city,  the  amount  of  commerce,  and  the 
number  of  persons  to  be  benefited  by  an  increase  in  the  commercial 
facilities  of  Troy.  A  fuller  and  better  statement  of  all  is  found  in 
the  letter  of  Mr.  E.  W.  Douglas,  president  of  the  Chamber  of  Com- 
merce of  Troy,  appended  hereto. 

Troy's  commerce  by  water  has  actually  declined  in  past  years. 
The  facilities  for  transportation  b^  railroads  have  been  increased 
until  it  is  no  longer  economical  to  bring  much  of  the  freight  by  water 
under  the  disadvantages  which  hamper  the  river  traffic  due  to  a  lack 
of  harbor  facilities.  The  people  of  Troy  realize  this,  and  are  desirous 
of  obtaining  the  full  benefit  wliich  can  be  derived  from  the  location 
of  Troy  at  the  head  of  tide-water  navigation  on  the  Hudson  for  which 
further  improvement  is  contemplated.  Congress  having  already  author- 
ized the  formation  of  a  project  with  a  view  to  securing  a  channel  of 
ample  width  with  a  minimum  depth  of  12  feet  at  the  lowest  stages 
of  the  river,  and  which  river  in  a  short  time  will  be  connected  with 
the  Great  Lakes  by  the  New  York  barge  canal,  and  with  the  country 
to  the  north  by  the  improved  Champlain  Canal. 

With  a  considerable  expenditure  of  time  and  money  the  Chamber 
of  Commerce  of  Troy  has  prepared  the  appended  report,  to  which 


oNot  printed. 


90 


HUDSON  iflVER,  NEW  YORK. 


attention  is  invited,  and  which  shows  fully  the  importance  of  the 
city,  the  existing  commerce,  and  the  advantages  which  can  easily 
be  expected  to  follow  the  improvement  of  the  river  channel  and  the 
formation  of  a  suitable  harbor  at  the  city.  The  city  of  Troy  is 
prepared  to  cooperate  with  the  United  States  in  this  matter,  and 
attention  is  respectfully  invited  to  the  certified  copy  of  a  resolution 
passed  by  the  common  council  of  the  city  of  Troy  on  the  1st  of  July, 
1909,  in  which  it  was  resolved  that  if  the  General  Government  shall 
take  measures  for  the  widening,  deepening,  and  improving  of  the 
existing  channel  up  to  the  harbor  line  so  that  vessels  may  be  readily 
landed  at  the  docks,  the  city  of  Troy  will  undertake  to  secure  and  main- 
tain public  docks  and  secure  sufhcient  warehouses  for  the  storage  of 
freight,  and  prohibit  the  obstruction  of  the  channel  by  refuse  from 
the  city,  and  to  remove  from  the  improved  channel  any  detritus  and 
refuse  which  may  pass  into  the  river  within  its  boundaries. 

In  view  of  the  foregoing,  I  have  the  honor  to  state  that,  in  my 
opinion,  the  Hudson  River  at  Troy  is  worthy  of  improvement,  and 
I  have  the  honor  to  recommend  that  the  necessary  work  of  forming 
a  channel  project  be  authorized.  The  estimated  expense  for  the 
rock  boring,  surveys,  etc.,  is  $1,500. 

Very  respectfully,  W.  M.  Black, 

Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers. 

The  Chief  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army 
(Through  the  Division  Engineer.) 

[First  indorsement.] 

Northeast  Division,  Engineer  Office, 

WasTiington,  D.  C,  August  4,  1909, 

Respectfully  forwarded  to  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army. 

The  existing  project  for  improving  the  Hudson  River  contemplates 
a  12-foot  channel  of  width  increasing  from  that  at  the  State  dam  at 
Troy  to  that  at  Coxsackie,  28  miles  below. 

The  river  and  harbor  act  of  March  3,  1909,  provides  for  an  exami- 
nation of  that  river,  with  a  view  to  providing  a  deeper  and  in  places 
a  wider  channel,  and  for  extending  this  channel  both  downstream  and 
upstream  2.6  miles  to  Waterford,  the  terminus  of  the  New  York  barge 
canal. 

Lying  between  the  ends  of  the  channel  under  improvement  are  sit- 
uated Coeymans,  Albany,  and  Troy,  and  at  each  of  these  places  special 
examinations  are  also  ordered  by  the  act  of  March  3,  1909.  These 
examinations  involve  the  consideration  of  the  advisability  of  specially 
widening  the  normal  channel  in  front  of  these  three  places,  and  the 
same  question  may  arise  at  one  or  more  other  places. 

I  consider  these  special  examinations  as  properly  but  parts  of  the 
examination  of  the  Hudson  River,  provided  for  as  above  stated,  and 
deeming  the  further  improvement  of  the  river  to  be  worthy  of  being 
undertaken  by  the  General  Government,  recommend  that  surveys  for 
the  special  examinations  provided  for,  of  which  that  herein  reported 
upon  is  one,  be  authorized  and  the  reports  thereon  be  incorporated  in 
one  comprehensive  report  upon  the  proposed  further  improvement  of 
the  Hudson  River. 

John  G.  D.  Knight, 
Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers, 

Division  Engineer, 


HUDSON  RR^EE,  NEW  YORK.  91 
[Third  indorsement.] 

Board  of  Engineers  for  Rivers  and  Harbors, 

Washington,  D.  C,  August  9,  1909. 

Respectfully  returned  to  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army,  invit- 
ing attention  to  the  Board's  report  of  this  date  on  report  of  prelimi- 
nary examination  of  Hudson  River  at  Coeymans.^ 

For  the  Board: 

D.  W.  LOCKWOOD, 

Cohnel,  Corps  of  Engineers, 

Senior  Member  of  ihe  Board. 

[Fourth  indorsement.)  ^ 

War  Department, 
Office  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers, 

Washington,  August  17,  1909. 
Respectfully  submitted  to  the  Secretary  of  War. 
This  is  a  report  on  preliminary  examination  of  Hudson  River  at 
Troy,  N.  Y.,  authorized  by  the  river  and  harbor  act  of  March  3, 1909. 

Inviting  attention  to  the  report  of  the  Board  of  Engineers  for 
Rivers  and  Harbors  in  indorsement  dated  the  9th  instant  on  a  separ- 
ate paper,  I  recommend  that  a  survey  of  the  locality,  as  proposed, 
be  authorized. 

Frederic  V.  Abbot, 

Acting  Chief  of  Engineers. 

[Fifth  Indorsement.) 

War  Department,  August  20,  1909. 

Approved. 

John  C.  Scofield, 
Assistant  and  Chief  Cleric  for  the 

Secretary  of  War  in  his  absence. 


PRELIMINARY  EXAMINATION  OF  HUDSON  RIVER  AT  COEYIVIANS, 

NEW  YORK. 

United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  YorTc  City,  August  2,  1909. 

Sm:  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  the  following  report  upon  a  pre- 
liminary examination  of  the  Hudson  River  at  Coeymans  with  a  view 
to  securing  a  suitable  width  and  depth  in  the  channel  along  the  vil- 
lage front  behind  the  Government  dike,  in  accordance  with  the  pro- 
visions of  section  13  of  the  river  and  harbor  act  approved  March  3, 
1909. 

The  village  of  Coeymans  is  situated  in  a  bight  on  the  east  bank  of 
the  Hudson  River  al^out  13  miles  south  of  Albany.  For  the  purpose 
of  improving  the  channel  across  the  bar  known  as  Coeymans  Cross- 
over a  dike  about  2,650  feet  long  was  built  in  front  of  the  village 
wharves  across  the  mouth  of  the  bight.  The  distance  from  the  shore 
to  the  dike  at  its  ends  is  about  300  feet  and  at  its  middle  point  about 
500  feet.  As  a  result  of  this  improvement,  the  area  between  the  dike 
and  shore  has  shoaled  so  that  vessels  now  have  difficulty  in  reaching 


a  See  page  12. 


92 


HtJt)SO>T  RtVER,  NEV7  YORK. 


the  village  wharves,  and  the  general  improvement  of  the  river  has  thus 
been  injurious  to  the  local  commerce  of  Coeymans.  This  commerce 
has  fallen  off  greatly  in  recent  years,  and  it  has  not  been  possible  to 
obtain  any  statistics  as  to  its  amount  at  present. 

It  is  believed  to  be  important  that  the  villages  lying  on  the  banks 
of  the  Hudson  River  should  be  given  proper  facilities  for  river  traflic 
and  that  therefore  certain  improvements  will  be  needed  at  Coeymans. 
Inasmuch,  however,  as  works  there  must  be  considered  carefully  in 
connection  with  the  general  project  of  river  improvement  and  main- 
tained under  the  general  scheme  for  the  river,  and  since  they  are  so 
intimately  related  thereto,  it  is  my  opinion  that  they  should  be  pre- 
pared as  a  portion  of  the  general  project  of  river  improvement  and 
maintained  under  the  general  scheme  for  the  river,  and  that  a  separate 
project  and  appropriation  should  not  be  made. 

I  therefore  have  the  honor  to  report  that  I  do  not  deem  this  work 
worthy  as  a  separate  project,  but  I  would  recommend  that  it  be 
directed  that  it  be  studied  as  a  part  of  the  project  for  the  general 
improvement  of  the  river  and  incorporated  therein.  The  estimated 
cost  of  the  necessary  map  is  $20. 

Very  respectfully,  W.  M.  Black, 

Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers. 

The  Chief  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army. 
(Through  the  Division  Engineer.) 

[First  indorsement.] 

Northeast  Division,  Engineer  Office, 

Washington,  D.  C,  August  4,  1909. 

Respectfully  forwarded  to  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army. 

The  existing  project  for  improving  the  Hudson  River  contemplates 
a  12-foot  channel  of  width  increasing  from  that  at  the  State  dam  at 
Troy  to  that  at  Coxsackie,  28  miles  below. 

The  river  and  harbor  act  of  March  3,  1909,  provides  for  an  exami- 
nation of  that  river  with  a  view  to  providing  a  deeper  and  in  places 
a  wider  channel  and  for  extending  this  channel  both  downstream 
and  upstream  2.6  miles  to  Wat  erf  or  d,  the  terminus  of  the  New  York 
barge  canal. 

Lying  between  the  ends  of  the  channel  under  improvement  are 
situated  Coeymans,  Albany,  and  Troy*  and  at  each  of  these  places 
special  examinations  are  also  ordered  by  the  act  of  March  3,  1909. 
These  examinations  involve  the  consideration  of  the  advisability  of 
specially  widening  the  normal  channel  in  front  of  these  three  places; 
and  the  same  question  may  arise  at  one  or  more  other  places. 

I  consider  these  special  examinations  as  properly  but  parts  of  the 
examination  of  the  Hudson  River,  provided  for  as  above  stated;  and 
deeming  the  further  improvement  of  the  river  to  be  worthy  of  being 
undertaken  by  the  General  Government,  I  recommend  that  surveysfor 
the  special  examinations  provided  for,  of  which  that  herein  reported 
upon  is  one,  be  authorized  and  the  reports  thereon  be  incorporated  in 
one  comprehensive  report  upon  the  proposed  further  improvement  of 
the  Hudson  River. 

John  G.  D.  Knight, 
Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers, 

Division  Engineer. 


HUDSON  KIVEK,  NEW  YORK. 


93 


[Third  indorsement.] 

Board  of  Engineers  for  Rivers  and  Harbors, 

Washington,  D.  C,  August  9,  1909, 

Respectfully  returned  to  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army. 

The  preliminary  examination  reported  upon  within  was  made  in  par- 
tial compliance  with  an  item  contained  in  section  13  of  the  act  of  March 
3,  1909,  requiring  consideration  of  the  advisability  of  improving 
the  Hudson  River  at  Coeymans,  at  Albany,  and  at  Troy.  Each  of 
these  localities  has  been  made  the  subject  of  a  separate  report  by  the 
district  officer. 

The  same  act,  in  another  item,  also  called  for  a  preliminary  examina- 
tion of  ''Hudson  River,  with  a  view  to  providing  a  channel  not  less 
than  200  feet  wide  and  12  feet  deep  at  all  stages  from  deep  water  in 
the  lower  river  to  Waterford    *    *  The  report  on  that  exami- 

nation has  been  submitted  by  the  district  officer  and  a  survey 
recommended. 

The  localities  considered  in  the  within  and  the  accompan3dng 
reports  are  within  the  limits  to  be  covered  in  the  formulation  of  a  plan 
for  improving  the  river  under  the  item  of  law  just  quoted.  On  account 
of  their  intimate  relation  to  such  general  plan,  the  Board  believes  that 
they  should  be  considered  in  connection  therewith,  and  the  necessary 
estimates  and  recommendations  be  included  in  one  comprehensive 
report  on  the  proposed  general  project.  To  defray  the  additional 
expense  of  these  special  investigations,  which  the  Board  believes  to 
be  justified  by  the  interests  involved,  the  Board  recommends  the 
allotment  of  the  sums  requested  by  the  district  officer. 

It  is  further  recommended  that  in  his  final  report  the  district  officer 
give  careful  consideration  to  the  practicability  and  desirability  of 
securing  the  cooperation  of  local  interests  in  the  work  of  improve- 
ment at  the  localities  requiring  special  attention,  and  to  the  provision 
of  adequate  terminal  facilities  at  such  localities. 

For  the  Board: 

D.  W.  Lock  WOOD, 
Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers, 
Senior  Member  of  the  Board. 

Fourth  indorsement.] 

War  Department, 
Office  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers, 

Washington,  August  17,  1909. 

Respectfully  submitted  to  the  Secretary  of  War. 

Tliis  is  a  report  on  preliminary  examination  of  Hudson  River  at 
Coeymans,  New  York,  authorized  by  the  river  and  harbor  act  of 
March  3,  1909. 

Invit>ing  attention  to  the  report  of  the  Board  of  Engineers  for 
Rivers  and  Harbors  in  the  preceding  indorsement,  I  recommend  that 
a  survey  of  the  locality,  as  proposed,  be  authorized. 

Frederic  V.  Abbot, 

Acting  Chief  of  Engineers, 


94 


HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


I  Fifth  indorsement.] 

War  Department,  August  18,  1909. 

Approved. 

John  C.  Scofield, 
Assistant  and  Chief  (Jlerk, 
for  the  Secretary  of  War  in  his  absence. 


PRELIMINARY  EXAMINATION  OF  HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK,  AT 
THE  MOUTH  OF  ISLAND  CREEK  AND  VICINITY. 

United  States  Engineer  Office, 

New  Yorlc  City,  August  2,  1909. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  the  following  report  upon  a  pre- 
liminary examination  of  the  Hudson  Ri^  er  at  Albany,  with  a  view  to 
providing  additional  area  of  navigable  depth  at  the  mouth  of  Island 
Creek  and  vicinity,  for  the  benefit  of  general  commerce  and  the  mak- 
ing up  of  barge  tows,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  section  13 
of  the  river  and  harbor  act  approved  March  3,  1909. 

Boats  coming  from  the  Erie  and  Champlain  canals  are  usually 
made  up  into  fleets  at  Alban}-  for  towing  down  the  Hudson  River. 
In  making  up  these  tows  and  in  swinging  into  position  for  starting 
an  area  of  waterway  is  required  broader  than  that  offered  by  the 
ordinary-  river  channel.  The  shoals  opposite  the  mouth  of  Island 
Creek  and  vicinity  restrict  the  area  required  unduly  and  make  dan- 
gerous navigation  at  this  point  when  tows  are  being  formed  or  are 
swinging.  The}^  also  make  difficult  of  access  the  Delaware  and 
Hudson  Company's  docks  in  the  neighborhood  of  Island  Creek. 
Their  removal  is  desirable. 

It  is  my  opinion  that  the  work  necessary  at  this  point  should  form 
a  part  of  the  general  project  for  the  improvement  of  the  river  now 
under  preparation,  and  should  not  be  a  separate  project. 

I  therefore  have  the  honor  to  report  that  this  localit}^  is  worthy  of 
improvement  as  a  part  of  the  general  project  for  improvement  of  the 
river,  and  that  it  should  be  provided  for  in  said  project.  The  esti- 
mated cost  of  the  necessary  map  is  $20. 

Very  respectfully,  W.  M.  Black, 

Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers. 

The  Chief  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army. 
(Through  the  Division  Engineer.) 

[First  indorsement.] 

Northeast  Division,  Engineer  Office, 

Washington,  D.  C,  August  4^  1909, 

Respectfully  forwarded  to  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army. 

The  existing  project  for  improving  the  Hudson  River  contemplates 
a  12-foot  channel  of  width  increasing  from  that  at  the  State  dam  at 
Troy  to  that  at  Coxsackie,  28  miles  below. 

The  river  and  harbor  act  of  March  3,  1909,  provides  for  an  exami- 
nation of  that  river,  with  a  view  to  providing  a  deeper  and  in  places 
a  wider  channel,  and  for  extending  this  channel  both  downstream 
and  upstream  2.6  miles  to  Waterford,  the  terminus  of  the  Xew  York 
barge  canal. 


HUDSON  KIVEE,  NEW  YORK. 


95 


Lying  between  the  ends  of  the  channel  under  improvement  are 
situated  Coeymans,  Albany,  and  Troy,  and  at  each  of  these  places 
special  examinations  are  also  ordered  by  the  act  of  March  3,  1909. 
These  examinations  involve  the  consideration  of  the  advisability  of 
specially  wiaening  the  normal  channel  in  front  of  these  three  places, 
and  the  same  question  may  arise  at  one  or  more  other  places. 

I  consider  these  special  examinations  as  properly  but  parts  of  the 
examination  of  the  Hudson  River,  provided  for  as  above  stated;  and 
deeming  the  further  improvement  of  the  river  to  be  worthy  of  being 
undertaken  by  the  General  Government,  I  recommend  that  surveys  for 
the  special  examinations  provided  for,  of  which  that  herein  reported 
upon  is  one,  be  authorized  and  the  reports  thereon  be  incorporated 
in  one  comprehensive  report  upon  the  proposed  further  improvement 
of  the  Hudson  River. 

John  G.  D.  Knight, 
Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers, 

Division  Engineer. 

[Third  indorsement.) 

Board  of  Engineers  for  Rivers  and  Harbors, 

Washington,  D.  C,  August  9,  1909. 

Respectfully  returned  to  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army, 
inviting  attention  to  the  Board's  report  of  this  date  on  report  of 
preliminary  examination  of  Hudson  River  at  Coeymans.'* 

For  the  Board: 

D.  W.  Lock  WOOD, 

Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers, 
Senior  Member  of  tJie  Board. 

[Fourth  Indorsement.] 

^  War  Department, 

Office  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers, 

Washington,  August  17,  1909. 

Respectfully  submitted  to  the  Secretary  of  War. 

This  is  a  report  on  preliminary  examination  of  Hudson  River  at 
Albany,  N.  Y.,  authorized  by  the  river  and  harbor  act  of  March  3, 
1909. 

Inviting  attention  to  the  report  of  the  Board  of  Engineers  for 
Rivers  and  Harbors  in  indorsement  dated  the  9th  instant  on  a 
separate  paper,  I  recommend  that  a  survey  of  the  locality  as  pro- 
posed be  authorized. 

Frederic  V.  Abbot, 

Acting  Chief  of  Engineers. 

[Fifth  indorsement.] 

War  Department,  August  18,  1909. 

Approved. 

John  C.  Scofield, 
Assistant  and  Cliief  Cleric, 
for  the  Secretary  of  War  in  his  absence. 


o  See  page  12. 


96 


HUDSON  RIVEK,  NEW  YORK. 


SURVEY  OF  HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK,  AT  VARIOUS  LOCALITIES. 

U.  S.  Engineer  Office, 
New  York  City,  January  10,  1910. 
Sir.  In  compliance  with  the  provisions^  of  section  13  of  the  river 
and  liarbor  act,  approved  March  3,  1909,  and  the  instructions  con- 
tained in  the  letters  of  June  5  and  September  8,  1909,  from  the 
Chief  of  Enf^^ineers,  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  the  following  partial 
report  on  the  improvement  of  the  Hudson  River  with  a  view  to 
providing  a  channel  not  less  than  200  feet  wide  and  12  feet  deep  at 
all  stages  from  deep  water  in  the  lower  river  to  Water  ford,  including 
a  lock  and  dam  at  Troy  suitable  in  size  for  all  probable  purposes  of 
navigation  and,  commerce  to  and  from  the  barge  canal;  of  the 
Hudson  River  at  Coeymans,  N.  Y.,  with  a  view  to  securing  a  suitable 
width  and  depth  in  the  channel  along  the  village  front  behind  the 
Government  dike;  also  at  Albany,  with  a  view  to  providmg  additional 
area  of  navigable  depth  at  the  mouth  of  Island  Creek  and  vicinity 
for  the  benefit  of  general  commerce  and  the  making  up  of  barge 
tows;  also  at  Troy,  with  a  view  to  widening  the  channel  below  Adams 
street. 

The  allotments  for  the  necessary  surveys  were  made  on  June  5 
and  September  8,  1909.  The  field  work  was  begun  as  soon  as  practi- 
cable and  continued  until  the  close  of  the  working  season.  Much 
data  has  been  obtained  from  which  the  details  or  this  important 
project  can  be  determined.  As  yet  there  has  not  been  time  sufficient 
to  complete  the  necessary  studies.  The  new  Champlain  Canal  will 
probably  be  open  for  navigation  in  1913,  and  the  work  on  the  main 
barge  canal  is  far  advanced. 

The  only  outlet  from  these  great  improvements  now  existing  is 
through  the  sloop  lock  in  the  State  dam  at  Troy — with  interior 
dimensions  of  125  by  28  feet,  and  a  depth  of  4^  feet  at  mean  low 
water  over  the  lower  miter  sill  (about  2\  feet  at  extrerj^e  low  water), 
the  lock  dimensions  in  the  new  canal  being  310  by  45  feet,  with  12 
feet  over  the  lower  miter  sill.  The  dam  itself  is  a  stone-filled  crib 
structure  in  bad  repair,  with  its  crest  2  feet  too  low  to  afford  the 
12-foot  depth  on  the  lower  miter  sills  of  the  lowest  State  locks. 
In  addition,  below  the  lock,  between  its  lower  gate  and  the  improved 
channel  of  the  Hudson,  is  a  rock  ledge  with  a  depth  over  it  of  4 J  feet 
at  mean  low  water. 

From  this  it  is  evident  that  until  a  new  lock  and  dam  with  the 
necessary  chaanel  approaches  has  been  constructed,  the  through 
commerce  of  the  new  canals  will  be  restricted  to  the  capacity  of  the 
old  State  canals,  and  the  new  State  work,  on  which  $101,000,000  is 
being  expended,  will  be  of  but  trifling  value. 

The  existing  project  for  the  improvement  of  the  Hudson  provides 
for  a  12-foot  channel  150  feet  wide  from  the  State  dam  to  the  foot 
of  Jacob  street,  Troy;  thence  gradually  increasing  in  width  to  400 
feet  at  the  foot  of  Broadway,  Troy;  thence  400  feet  wide  to  Cox- 
sackie,  at  an  estimated  cost  of  $4,343,863. 

Up  to  December  31,  1909,  $3,786,668.71  has  been  expended  on 
this  project,  of  which  $334,022.33  was  for  maintenance,  and  $14,432.37 
for  Tarry  town  Harbor  and  Schodack  Creek,  not  included  in  orisfinal 
estimates — and  there  was  then  existing  a  channel  having  a  width  of 
not  less  than  190  feet  and  a  maximum  depth  of  12  feet  at  meanJow 


HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


97 


water  from  Coxsackie  to  the  Delaware  and  Hudson  Company's  bridge 
at  Troy,  except  at  the  New  York  Central  and  Hudson  River  Railroad 
Company's  freight  bridge  at  Albany,  where  the  channel  through  the 
draw  span  is  contracted  to  a  maximum  of  90  feet;  and  a  depth  of  11 
feet  and  minimum  wddth  of  75  feet  from  the  Delaware  and  Hi:d>on 
Company's  railroad  bridge  to  within  900  feet  from  the  State  dam. 

The  depths  mentioned  above  are  depths  below  the  plane  of  mean 
low  water.  Inasmuch  as  the  canals  will  have  a  least  navigable  depth 
of  12  feet  at  all  stages,  and  inasmuch  as  at  the  lowest  stage  the  river 
falls  from  2  to  2 J  feet  below  the  mean  low-water  plane,  it  is  evident 
that  advantage  can  not  be  safely  taken  of  the  full  depth  in  the  canals 
until  the  present  improved  channels  have  been  deepened. 

At  least  three  working  seasons  would  be  required  to  complete  a 
new  lock  and  dam  and  its  channel  approaches,  and  if  it  be  desired 
to  have  this  work  finished  in  time  for  the  opening  of  the  Champlain 
Canal,  work  must  be  begun  at  once.  Under  these  considerations  it  is 
deemed  advisable  to  sulDmit  a  general  plan  and  estimate  at  this  time, 
making  a  full  report  later  when  the  studies  of  the  river  shall  have  been 
advanced  sufRciently  to  permit  the  details  of  the  work  to  be  devised. 

CHANNEL  ABOVE  DAM. 

The  proposed  channel  in  the  Hudson  above  Waterford,  which  forms 
the  southern  reach  of  the  Champlain  Canal,  is  200  feet  wide,  and  that 
of  the  earth  cut  in  the  main  barge  canal  is  133  feet.  The  minimum 
width  named  in  the  act  of  March  3  for  the  Hudson,  200  feet,  will  prob- 
ably be  sufficient  for  the  section  between  the  dam  at  Troy  and  ^^  ater- 
ford,  which  will  be  in  reality  a  canal  section,  navfgated  by  boats, 
singly  or  in  tows,  of  the  size  used  in  the  canals. 

The  estimate  for  this  channel  under  the  assumption  that  the  pool 
level  will  be  at  the  elevation  proposed  for  the  crest  of  the  dam  (15.2 
feet  above  the  barge  canal  datum,  as  determined  from  zero  of  the 
Greenbush  bench  mark),- is  as  follows: 

Rock  excavation,  9.000  cubic  yards,  at  $3.50   $31,  500 

Dredging  25,000  cubic  yards,  at  50  cents   12,  500 

Total   44,000 

LOCK  AND  DAM. 

The  dimensions  adopted  for  the  lock  chambers  of  the  barge  canals 
are  310  by  45  feet.  Inasmuch  as  the  traffic  of  both  canals  will  have 
to  pass  through  the  lock  at  Troj^,  and  as  the  dimensions  for  the  State 
locks,  as  built,  were  determined  after  a  careful  study  of  the  canal 
requirements,  and  represent  what  may  be  considered  a  conservative 
estimate  of  these  requirements,  it  is  evident  that  the  capacity  of  a 
single  lock  at  Troy  should  be  greater  than  that  of  a  lock  sufficient  for 
the  service  of  one  canal  alone. 

It  is  deemed  unwise  at  present  to  construct  twin  locks  at  Troy. 
Should  the  canal  commerce  develop  to  the  extent  that  seems  probable, 
one  lock  at  Troy  will  not  be  sufficient.  But  more  than  two  locks  can 
not  be  built  side  by  side  without  unduly  restricting  the  length-  of 
dam  crest.  F'urther,  the  type  of  boat  and  of  tow  which  will  be  used 
in  the  canals  is  as  yet  a  matter  of  theory  only.  Experience  will 
bring  out  the  type,  and  until  that  is  had  it  would  be  unwise  to  build 
the  second  lock.  Under  these  conditions  it  is  deemed  best  to  plan  for 
54559°— S.  Doc.  887,  62-2  7 


98 


HUDSON  EIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


a  lock  having  the  chamber  width  of  the  canal  locks  (45  feet)  and  a 
chamber  length  one  and  one-half  times  as  great  (465  feet),  divided 
by  gates  into  two  chambers  of  310  feet  and  155  feet  length,  respec- 
tively, so  as  to  economize  time  and  water  when  small  boats  or  tows 
are  to  be  passed. 

The  height  of  the  crest  of  the  dam  must  be  placed  at,  at  least,  the 
level  of  15.2  feet  above  the  barge  canal  datum  in  order  to  give  the 
requisite  depths  on  the  miter  sills  of  the  lowest  locks  of  the  two  canals, 
and  the  estimate  is  made  accordingly.  Should  further  study  show 
it  to  be  advisable  to  increase  this  height  somewhat  in  order  to  provide 
storage  of  water  for  power  purposes,  this  can  be  done  without  making 
any  marked  change  in  the  estimates. 

The  location  of  the  dam  is  another  question.  In  the  preliminary 
report  submitted  by  Col.  D.  W.  Lockwood,  Corps  of  Engineers, 
under  date  of  December  28,  1906,  and  printed  in  H.  Doc.  No,  539, 
59th  Cong.,  2d  sess.,  two  projects  are  outlined.  In  both  the  new 
dam  is  placed  immediately  below  the  existing  dam.  In  one  the  lock 
is  placed  at  the  head  of  the  narrow  channel,  close  to  the  east  bank  of 
the  river.  In  the  other  it  is  placed  close  to  the  west  bank.  In  the 
former  the  approach  from  the  north  is  crooked,  and  would  require 
boats  to  make  a  turn  just  above  the  lock,  across  the  current  flowing 
over  the  dam.  In  times  of  even  minor  freshets  this  would  be  danger- 
ous. A  few  years  ago  a  towboat  attempting  to  enter  the  existing 
sloop  lock  in  the  time  of  a  freshet  got  out  of  control  and  was  carried 
over  the  dam.  This  turn  would  also  increase  the  time  lost  in  passing 
the  lock. 

Below  the  lock  the  approach  is  through  the  narrow  channel  skirting 
the  wharves  of  Troy.  Should  the  city  of  Troy  carry  out  the  plans 
which  are  mentioned  later  in  this  report,  this  channel  will  be  ob- 
structed by  boats  lying  at  the  wharves,  and  at  best  it  would  not  afford 
a  width  sufficient  to  allow  boats  after  a  downstream  lockage  to  pass 
boats  moored  close  below  the  lock  awaiting  their  turn  for  lockage. 
If  the  lock  were  placed  far  enough  from  the  east  bank  to  allow  a 
straight  approach  above  and  below,  it  would  restrict  the  length  of 
dam  crest  unduly  unless  the  lock  were  cut  off  from  the  shore  by  a 
further  length  of  crest.  This  last  would  expose  the  lock  and  its  ap- 
purtenances to  injury  in  floods  or  during  the  flow  of  ice,  and  would 
render  the  operation  of  the  lock  more  difficult. 

In  the  second  project  straight  approaches  of  adequate  width  could 
be  made.  The  approach  from  the  south,  lying  close  to  the  west  bank 
of  the  river,  would  be  entirely  useless  as  a  part  of  the  harbor  of  Troy, 
and  if  the  new  channel,  as  well  as  that  now  existing  and  affording 
access  to  Troy,  were  to  be  maintained,  it  would  necessitate  the  con- 
struction and  operation  of  two  sets  of  draw  spans  in  each  of  the 
bridges. 

After  a  careful  consideration  of  the  question  it  has  been  decided  to 
recommend  the  construction  of  the  new  dam  about  1,400  feet  to  the 
north  of  the  site  of  the  existing  dam,  with  the  lock  placed  close  to  the 
east  bank,  as  shown  on  the  accompanying  map.  The  advantages  of 
this  site  may  be  summarized  as  follows: 

1.  Rock  foundations  throughout  at  a  moderate  depth. 

2.  A  length  of  crest  somewhat  greater  than  that  of  the  existing  dam. 

3.  Location  of  lock  directly  against  east  bank. 

4.  Straight  approaches  above  and  below  lock. 

5.  Ample  room  above  and  below  lock  for  boats  awaiting  a  lockage. 


HUDSON  EIVEE,  NEW  YOKK. 


99 


It  will  be  necessar}^  to  purchase  a  narrow  strip  of  land  on  the  e.nst 
bank  sufficient  to  provide  for  the  lock,  abutments,  guide  ciibs,  and 
accessories;  and  on  the  right  bank  a  portion  of  Green  Island,  and  a 
s^nice  on  the  river  bank  for  the  abutment.  Green  Island  (or  Jan 
GoAvsen  Island)  is  of  slight  value,  being,  for  the  greater  part,  under 
water  when  the  river  is  about  1  or  2  feet  above  the  low-water  stage. 
At  least  two  piers  will  have  to  be  constructed  above  the  lock  to 
which  boats  awaiting  lockage  can  tie. 

Certain  manufacturing  establishments  on  the  east  and  west  banks 
of  the  river  are  now  using  power  developed  by  the  dam  under  leases 
obtained  from  the  State  or  Xew  York.  The  lease  for  the  east  side 
was  obtained  in  1832.    It  ma}'  be  summarized  as  foUows: 

The  lease  is  for  the  use  of  one-half  of  *  *  *  the  surplus  waters  created  by  the 
erection  of  the  State  dam  in  the  Hudson  River  *  *  *  for  the  term  of  nine  hundred 
and  ninety  years." 

The  Ici^sees  are  to  pay  to  the  State — 

"§50  for  the  first  year,  with  an  increase  of  $50  a  year  for  every  year  thereafter  until 
it  amounts  to  the  sum  of  $300  a  year,  and  then  to  continue  at  the  said  sum  of  $300  a 
year  for  the  remainder  of  said  term." 
The  conditions  of  the  lease  stipulate  that  the  lessees  may  have — 
"*  *  *  the  use  of  the  surplus  water  which  may  be  taken  at  the  east  end  of  the 
aforesaid  dam,  and  not  exceeding  one-half  of  the  quantity  which  may  be  taken  at 
both  ends  of  said  dam,  such  surplus  water  to  be  taken  and  drawn  from  the  said  dam 
at  such  place  and  in  such  manner,  and  be  discharsjed  at  such  place  and  in  such  man- 
ner, as  the  acting  canal  commissioner  or  the  canal  commissioners  shall  from  time  to 
time  direct;  saving  and  reserving  to  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part  the  right  wholly 
to  resume  the  waters  hereby  conveyed  and  the  privileges  hereby  granted,  and  to 
control  and  limit  the  use  of  said  water  and  privileges  whenever,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
canal  board  or  of  the  legislature,  the  necessary  supply  of  water  for  use  of  any  State 
canal,  or  the  safety  of  such  canal,  or  works  connected  therewith,  shall  render  such 
resumption,  control,  or  limitation  necessary.  And  in  case  any  such  resumption 
shall  be  made,  or  control  or  limitation  imposed,  no  compensation  or  damages  shall 
be  allowed  for  any  improvements  or  erections  made,  or  which  may  be  made  under 
or  in  consequence  of  this  grant  or  lease.  And  also  saving  and  reserving  to  the  said 
parties  of  the  first  part  the  right,  without  making  any  compensation  to  the  said  parties 
of  the  second  part,  or  any  other  person  claiming  under  them,  wholly  to  abandon  or 
destroy  the  work,  by  the  construction  of  which  the  said  surplus  water  has  been 
created,  whenever,  in  the  opinion  of  the  canal  commissioners,  the  occupation  and 
use  of  the  said  work  shall  cease  to  be  advantageous  to  the  State." 

The  lease  granted  for  water  for  the  west  bank  was  made  in  1835 
for  the  same  term  of  years,  and  in  similar  form,  with  similar  pro- 
visions. 

Under  these  leases  certain  manufacturing  establishments  on  the 
east  bank  have  been  using  about  1,740  horsepower  per  year,  and 
those  on  the  west  bank  about  190  horsepower.  The  State  authorities 
have  permitted  these  establishments  to  raise  the  crest  of  the  dam 
by  flash  boards,  and  to  store  water  by  night  for  use  during  the  day, 
causing  fluctuations  in  the  pool  level  during  the  season  of  lowest 
water,  which  might  be  inadmissible  when  the  new  barge  canals  are 
in  full  operation.  It  is  probable  that  when  the  new  dam  is  built 
there  will  be  surplus  water  sulficient  to  develop  at  least  about  1,400 
horsepower,  which  should  be  utilized.  A  small  portion  of  this  can 
be  used  for  operating  and  lighting  the  lock;  the  remainder  can  be 
sold. 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  abandonment  of  the  existing  structure 
by  the  State  extinguishes  these  leases  automatically.  The  legal  suc- 
cessors of  the  canal  commissioners  are  the  canal  board.  I  am 
informed  that  this  body  is  ready  to  abandon  the  dam  as  soon  as  the 


100 


HUDSON  RIVER^  NEW  YORK. 


United  States  has  constructed  a  new  lock  and  dam.  The  proposed 
change  in  location  of  the  dam  would  not  prevent  the  continued  use  of 
the  surplus  water  for  obtaining  power  by  these  establishments,  for  a 
flume  can  be  constructed  to  supply  it.  New  and  mutually  advan- 
tageous arrangements  can  be  made,  if  desired,  with  the  owners  of 
these  establishments  for  this  purpose,  or,  since  the  removal  of  the  site 
makes  it  possible  to  locate  other  new  establishments  in  a  position 
which  would  make  it  possible  to  utilize  the  power,  with  other  parties. 
In  other  words,  the  change  in  location  of  the  dam  would  not  destroy 
any  vested  rights  for  the  use  of  the  power  developed,  nor  would  such 
removal  prevent  the  present  users  from  continuing  its  use.  It  would, 
however,  place  the  Government  in  a  position  to  obtain  an  adequate 
return  for  such  power.  Time  has  not  permitted  an  estimate  of  cost 
of  a  new  flume  to  be  made. 

If  the  United  States  decides  to  undertake  the  construction  of  the 
lock  and  dam  the  Secretary  of  War  should  be  authorized  to  purchase, 
by  condemnation  or  otherwise,  under  the  general  statutes  of  the 
State  of  New  York,  the  real  property  necessary  for  the  improvement, 
and  also  to  grant  leases  or  licenses  for  the  use  of  the  surplus  water  for 
water  power  created  by  the  dam,  at  such  a  rate  and  on  such  condi- 
tions and  for  such  periods  of  time  as  may  seem  to  him  just,  equitable, 
and  expedient;  the  said  leases  or  licenses  to  be  limited  to  the  use  of 
the  surplus  water  not  required  for  navigation,  and  to  a  period  not 
exceeding  twenty  years;  for  the  occupation  of  such  land  belonging  to 
the  United  States  on  the  Hudson  River  as  may  be  required  for  power 
flumes  or  other  industrial  purposes  not  inconsistent  with  the  require- 
ments of  navigation;  and  to  construct  such  work  or  works  appurte- 
nant to  the  dam  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  development  and  use  of 
said  water  power. 

The  approximate  estimate  for  the  lock  and  dam  and  piers  is  as 
follows : 


40,000  cubic  yards  concrete,  at  $10   $400,  000 

360  cubic  yards  concrete  for  piers,  with  pile  foundations   5,  000 

14,700  cubic  yards  rock  excavation,  at  $3   44, 100 

36,000  cubic  yards  dredging,  at  $0.50   18,  000 

Gates,  machinery,  etc   55,000 

Lands  and  land  damages   25, 000 


Total   547,100 


CHANNEL  BETWEEN  DAM  AND  HEAD  OF  BREAKER  ISLAND  AND  HARBOR 

OF  TROY. 

Immediately  below  the  dam  the  area  above  the  existing  State  dam, 
now  covered  by  alluvial  deposits,  should  be  cleared  so  as  to  prevent 
*  these  deposits  from  being  carried  into  the  improved  channels  below. 
This  will  require  the  dredging  of  an  area  of  about  26  acres  to  a  depth 
of  about  5  feet.  The  greater  part  of  this  excavation  can  be  done  in 
the  dry.  The  estimated  volume  is  425,000  cubic  yards  and  the  esti- 
mate of  cost  is  $106,250. 

The  old  State  dam  and  lock  must  be  removed.  The  estimate  for 
this  work  is: 


Removing  34,222  cubic  yards  of  stone-filled  crib,  at  $1  $34,  222 

Removing  10,370  cubic  yards  of  stone-filled  crib,  at  $0.50  per  cubic  yard   5, 185 

Removing  13,333  cubic  yards  of  old  masonry  lock,  at  $3  per  cubic  yard   40,  000 


Total   79,407 


HUDSON  EIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


101 


Immediately  below  the  lock  a  basin  must  be  formed  for  the  accommo- 
dation of  boats  awaiting  lockage,  and  suitable  piers  must  be  built  to 
which  such  boats  can  tie.  Inasmuch  as  tows  of  from  70  to  80  boats  were 
of  frequent  occurrence,  provision  for  their  reception '  and  handling 
must  be  ample.  For  the  present  it  is  proposed  to  place  two  concrete 
piers  along  the  west  side  of  the  basin  and  to  excavate  a  basin  to  the 
required  channel  depth,  north  of  Adams  Island  joining  the  channels 
on  the  two  sides  of  Adams  Island  and  extending  to  the  lower  end  of 
the  lock,  as  shown  on  the  accompanying  map.  The  estimate  for  this 
vvork  is  as  follows : 


2  concrete  piers,  on  crib  foundations   $4.  600 

16,390  cubic  yards  rock  excavation,  at  $3   49, 170 

530,000  cubic  yards  dredging,  at  35  cents   185,  500 


Total   239,270 


Between  this  basin  and  the  Delaware  and  Hudson  Company's 
bridge  there  is  a  channel  between  Adams  Island  and  the  east  shore 
130  feet  wide  and  11  feet  deep  at  mean  low  water.  The  existing  pro- 
ject calls  for  the  increase  of  the  width  of  this  channel  to  150  feet. 

It  is  proposed  to  make  this  channel  150  feet  wide  and  12  feet  deep 
at  the  lowest  stage  (2  feet  deeper  than  at  present)  and  to  make  a  new 
channel  200  feet  wide  and  12  feet  deep  at  the  lowest  river  stages  to 
the  west  of  Adams  Island,  joining  the  existing  channel  below  the 
island,  and  increasing  the  waterway  to  a  clear  width  of  500  feet 
between  Adams  Island  and  the  bridge,  leaving  the  removal  of  Adams 
Island,  which  is  of  rock  formation,  to  some  future  date  when  the 
demands  of  commerce  shaU  justify  the  expense. 

Between  the  Delaware  and  Hudson  and  Congress  street  bridges 
the  proposed  channel  skirts  the  bulkhead  line,  and  has  a  width  of  500 
feet.  Below  the  Congress  street  bridge  the  channel  is  given  prac- 
tically the  full  width  of  the  river  as  far  as  the  Burden  Iron  Works, 
below  which  it  is  narrowed  to  400  feet,  which,  for  reasons  to  be 
stated  later,  has  been  adopted  as  the  minimum  channel  width  for 
the  improved  river.  The  increased  width  below  the  Congress  street 
bridge  is  required  to  pejmit  the  passenger  steamers  of  the  Troy-New 
York  Line  to  turn.  Their  dimensions  are  330  feet  in  length  by  76  feet 
beam.  It  further  will  permit  the  assemblage  of  tows  for  the  passage 
to  the  lower  river,  as  well  as  afford  room  for  general  harbor  purposes. 

The  estimate  of  cost  for  this  work  is  as  follows: 

316,384  cubic  yards  rock  excavation,  at  $3   $949, 152 

1,518,920  cubic  yards  dredging,  at  25  cents   379,  730 

Total  :   1,328,882 

Inasmuch  as  the  works  proposed  at  and  above  Troy  will  form  the 
junction  between  the  State  barge  canal  systems  and  the  improved 
channels  of  the  Hudson  River,  or,  in  other  words,  are  an  essential  outlet 
for  the  barge  canals,  it  has  been  deemed  advisable  to  lay  the  project 
for  these  works  before  the  advisory  board  of  consulting  engineers 
for  the  barge  canal.  I  am  authorized  by  that  board  to  state  that  the 
project  meets  with  their  approval. 

A  statement  of  the  existing  commerce  and  of  the  commercial 
needs  of  Troy  and  of  the  cities  on  the  opposite  bank  of  the  Hudson 
was  forwarded  with  the  report  on  the  preliminary  examination  of  the 
Hudson  River  at  Troy,  dated  July  31,  1909,  to  which  attention  is 
invited.    An  examination  of  the  conditions  shows  that  while  Iroy 


102 


HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


had  in  1908  a  water  commerce  amounting  to  521,000  torn.,  with  an 
estimated  vahie  of  $24,000,000,  full  use  had  not  been  made  of  the 
commercial  advantages  arising  from  its  location  on  the  Hudson  River 
at  the  head  of  tide- water  navigation  and  at  the  terminus  of  railroad 
lines  extending  in  all  directions  into  the  surrounding  country.  This 
was  due  partly  to  the  neglect  to  provide  proper  wharf  accommodations 
for  handling  and  transferring  freight,  and  partly  to  the  fact  that  the 
established  bulkhead  line  along  the  southern  half  of  the  city  lay  at  a 
distance  from  the  channel,  in  shoal  water  having  a  rock  bottom, 
through  which  a  channel  could  not  be  excavated  excepting  at  a  cost 
practically  prohibitive  to  an  individual  wharf  owner. 

The  business  men  in  Troy  are  fully  awake  to  the  necessity  of 
improving  the  commercial  facilities  of  their  city,  and  of  the  advisa- 
bility of  preparing  to  take  full  advantage  of  the  increased  possibilities 
of  traffic  which  will  follow  the  opening  of  the  Erie  and  Champlain 
Barge  canals.  They  desire  to  have  the  river  channel  brought  to 
their  bulkhead  line;  to  have  it  given  width  sufficient  to  afford  room 
for  harbor  work,  and  the  assembling  into  tows  of  the  boats  which  will 
pass  singly  or  in  small  groups  through  the  canals  and  through  the 
last  obstacle  to  free  navigation — the  lock  at  the  dam  at  Troy,  Sup- 
ported by  a  resolution  of  the  city  council,  a  copy  of  which  was  for- 
warded with  the  report  of  the  preliminary  examination  mentioned 
above,  they  are  prepared  to  build  a  substantial  bulkhead  along  the 
city  front;  to  secure  and  maintain  public  wharves;  to  build  and 
maintain  suitable  warehouses  for  storage  of  freight;  to  enforce  laws 
and  ordinances  prohibiting  the  obstruction  of  the  channel  by  city 
refuse;  and  to  remove  by  dredging  the  gravel  and  refuse  which  may 
pass  into  the  river  from  the  public  sewers  or  the  creeks  passing 
through  the  municipal  boundaries. 

They  have  had  a  competent  engineer  form  a  project  for  a  com- 
prehensive improvement  for  the  Troy  water  front  and  are  prepared 
to  expend  the  sum  of  at  least  $500,000  for  such  work  within  two 
years  after  the  acts  have  been  passed  by  Congress  making  the  neces- 
sary appropriations  for  the  improvements  desired.  A  letter  from 
Mr.  E.  W.  Douglas,  president  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Troy, 
to  this  effect  is  presented  herewith. 

In  my  opinion  the  interests  of  a  large  section  of  the  United  States 
would  be  served  by  widening  the  channel  of  the  Hudson  at  Troy, 
so  as  to  cause  it  to  lie  contiguous  to  the  established  bulkhead  line 
and  to  afford  room  for  a  harbor,  since  the  geographical  location  and 
the  existing  railroad  facilities  of  Troy  are  such  as  to  enable  freight 
to  be  transshipped  between  water  and  railroad  lines  and  distributed 
through  that  port  at  a  minimum  of  cost,  and  since  the  manufac- 
turing interests  of  Troy  are  in  themselves  sufficient  to  support  a 
large  commerce  of  raw  materials  and  manufactured  articles  of  a 
class  which  can  be  well  served  by  water  carriage. 

It  is  somewhat  difficult  to  separate  the  works  for  the  improvement 
of  the  river  necessary  for  the  accommodation  of  the  through  traffic 
past  Troy,  which  may  be  expected  with  reason  to  follow  the  opening 
of  the  canals  to  the  west  via  the  Great  Lakes,  and  to  the  Champlain 
region  and  Canada  in  the  north  via  the  Champlain  and  Canadian 
canals,  from  the  works  required  for  Troy  proper. 

A  reasonable  view  of  the  requirements  for  the  through  traffic 
may  be  to  consider  the  works  proposed  for  the  service  of  that  traffic 


HTOSOIT  EIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


103 


to  include  the  200-foot  channel  to  the  west  of  Adams  Island  and  a 
400-foot  channel  from  the  foot  of  Adams  Island  south,  charging  to 
the  harbor  of  Troy  the  cost  of  the  improvement  of  the  narrow  channel 
east  of  Adams  Island  and  the  cost  of  the  widening  of  the  400-foot 
channel  below  to  the  dimensions  shown  on  the  map. 

The  total  estimated  cost  of  the  proposed  improvement  between 
the  new  dam  and  the  head  of  Breaker  Island,  as  detailed  above,  is 
$1,328,882. 

The  divisions  on  the  line  stated  would  be: 

For  improvement  of  the  channel   $908,  323 

i^'or  the  harbor  of  Troy   420,  559 

Total   1,328,882 

There  are  in  existence  wharves  along  more  than  half  the  water 
front  of  Troy,  which,  though  privately  owned,  are  open  to  the  use 
of  any  shippers  desiring  to  use  them.  Through  the  lower  half  of  the 
city  this  privilege  is  of  little  value,  since  the  river  bottom  is  of  rock 
and  the  low-water  depth  at  the  wharves  varies  from  0  to  8  feet,  and 
it  is  dangerous  for  boats  to  lie  at  them. 

The  harbor  of  Troy  is  crossed  by  two  bridges;  the  lower,  the  Con- 
gress street  bridge,  has  a  clear  height  of  35  feet  above  the  river  at 
the  lowest  stages.  It  has  a  swing  span  affording  clear  openings  of 
109  feet  on  each  side  of  the  pivot  pier.  This  span  is  fairly  well 
located  with  respect  to  the  proposed  channel  lines  and  probably  the 
bridge  need  not  be  changed  for  the  present.  It  is  used  for  trolley- 
car  and  wagon  traffic. 

The  Delaware  and  Hudson  Railroad  and  highway  bridge  carries  a 
single-track  steam  railway  in  its  north  half  and  a  highway  containing 
trolley  tracks  in  its  south  half.  The  clear  height  above  the  river 
surface  at  the  lowest  stages  is  26  feet.  It  has  a  swing  span  with 
the  pivot  pier  located  on  the  east  bank,  and  affords  one  clear  opening 
for  navigation  45  feet  wide. 

To  afford  proper  facilities  for  navigation  this  bridge  should  be 
raised  at  least  to  the  height  of  the  Congress  street  bridge,  which  can 
be  done  without  disarrangement  of  the  street  grades  in  Troy.  The 
draw  should  be  placed  about  in  the  middle  of  the  proposed  channel, 
and  probably  should  afford  a  clear  channel  width  or  at  least  175  feet, 
if  there  is  but  one  opening;  or  two  openings  of  125  feet  each,  if  a  swing 
span  supported  on  a  central  pier  be  employed.  The  removal  of  the 
second  pier  to  the  west  of  the  pivot  pier  and  the  substitution  of  a 
bascule  span  with  two  draws  for  the  present  fixed  spans  would  prob- 
ably be  the  best  arrangement.  This  subject  will  have  to  be  taken  up 
later  and  definite  recommendations  made  after  all  parties  interested 
have  been  heard. 

The  reach  of  the  river  along  the  Troy  front  will  be  traversed  by 
the  canal  traffic  as  well  as  the  traffic  to  and  from  the  lower  river  and 
the  usual  harbor  movement  of  boats.  The  bridges  are  practically 
streets  joining  the  cities  on  the  two  banks  and  carry  as  well  the 
trains  of  the  Delaware  and  Hudson  Railroad  and  the  trolley  lines  to 
the  communities  near  by.  Traffic  over  them  is  practically  contigu- 
ous. Interruptions  to  this  traffic  by  the  necessity  of  opening  liie 
draw  spans  should  be  made  as  infrequent  as  possible.  For  the  bene- 
fit of  navigation  as  well  as  land  trafllc  the  bridges  should  afford  the 
maximum  clear  height  above  the.  water  which  the  conditions  of  the 


« 


104 


HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


shore  connections  will  permit.  A  study  is  being  made  of  the  matter, 
and  a  report  and  recommendations  will  be  submitted  later. 

CHANNEL  FROM  HEAD  OF  BREAKER  ISLAND  TO  DEEP  WATER. 

The  minimum  channel  width  recommended  is  400  feet.  The 
reasons  for  this  are  as  follows:  The  greater  part  of  the  commerce  of 
the  river  is  of  two  general  classes:  (a)  Steamboats  engaged  in  passen- 
ger and  freight  trallic,  and  (6)  barges  and  canal  boats  assembled  into 
fleets  and  towed  by  a  powerful  steamboat.  The  boats  in  class  (a)  are 
an  important  factor.  In  1908  they  carried  1,288,721  passengers  in 
addition  to  many  tons  of  freight.  The  largest  of  the  boats  are  the 
Morse  (length  427  feet,  beam  90  feet),  the  Adirondack  (length  412 
feet,  beam  88  feet),  the  HendryJc  Hudson  (length  400  feet,  beam  82 
feet),  the  Robert  Fulton  (length  348  feet,  beam  76  feet),  the  Rensselser 
(length  330  feet,  beam  76  feet),  and  the  Trojan  (length  330  feet,  beam 
76  feet).  These  boats  make  daily  trips  between  New  York  and 
Albany  and  Tro}^.  (b)  The  fleets  form  tows  of  solid  masses  1,100  feet 
long  and  100  feet  wide,  hauled  by  a  line  from  the  towboat.  In  bends, 
or  under  following  or  beam  winds,  they  swing  diagonally  across  the 
channel.  They  are  diflicult  to  guide  and,  when  going  with  the  current, 
diflicult  to  stop.  In  the  existing  shallow  channels  the  speed  of  the 
large  boats  must  be  checked  whenever  a  boat  tied  to  the  bank  is  to  be 
passed,  lest  the  following  wave  caused  by  the  steamer  tear  the  boat 
from  its  moorings.  These  large  boats  have  difficulty  in  passing  the 
tows  and  indeed  can  not  do  so  excepting  in  the  broader  straight 
reaches,  and  in  case  of  accident  can  not  turn  around  excepting  in  such 
reaches,  which  are  infrequent  in  the  upper  river.  To  pass  safely,  the 
channel  in  straight  reaches  should  be  wide  enough  to  afford  a  clearance 
at  the  bank  and  between  passing  boats  of  50  feet,  and  a  tow  may  be 
expected  to  cover  about  150  feet  of  channel  width.  In  bends,  when 
practicable,  the  channel  should  be  widened  to  a  greater  extent. 

The  depth  required  is  12  feet  at  the  lowest  stages.  Each  marked 
improvement  in  the  upper  river  has  been  followed  by  a  change  of 
tidal  range.  This  is  natural,  since  during  the  low- water  river  stages 
the  fresh-water  discharge  is  diminished  to  2,000  cubic  feet  per  second, 
and  the  river,  as  far  as  the  State  dam,  becomes  an  arm  of  the  sea, 
with  its  currents  and  levels  dependent  on  the  tidal  oscillations.  In 
1876  the  tides  had  a  range  at  the  State  dam  of  0.8  foot,  with  the 
mean  low-water  plane  3.43  feet  above  the  barge  canal  datum.  At 
this  time  the  range  is  2.06  feet,  with  the  mean  low-water  plane  2.2 
feet  above  the  same  datum. 

The  studies  are  not  yet  sufficiently  advanced  to  enable  the  prob- 
able new  plane  of  low  water  to  be  determined.  For  the  purposes  of 
this  estimate  it  is  assumed  that  above  the  Delaware  and  Hudson 
bridge  at  Troy  the  plane  of  the  surface  at  the  lowest  stage  will  be  2 
feet  below  the  present  adopted  mean  low-water  plane,  and  below  that 
bridge  as  far  as  Coxsackie  it  will  be  2^  feet  below  the  same  plane. 
It  is  doubtful  whether  further  study  will  greatly  change  this  deter- 
mination. 

The  improvement  will  consist  of  dredging,  rock  excavation,  and 
the  construction  of  dikes  and  training  walls,  and  will  have  to  be 
extended  nearly  as  far  south  as  Hudson.    The  exact  location  and 


HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK.  105 

extent  of  the  permanent  w^orks  can  not  be  determined  until  the  nec- 
essary studies  are  further  advanced.    It  is  believed,  however,  that- 
the  estimate  made  will  cover  the  necessary  w^ork.    This  estimate  is 
as  follows: 


5,082,160  cubic  yards  dredging,  at  25  cents  per  cubic  yard   $1,  270,  540 

67,385  cubic  yards  rock  excavation,  at  $3  per  cubic  yard   202, 155 

69,000  linear  feet  dike  construction,  at  $13   897,  000 


Total   2,369,695 


The  price  for  dredging  and  rock  excavation  will  be  a  function  of 
the  locaUties  obtained  for  the  deposit  of  the  excavated  materials  and 
of  the  means  by  which  the  deposits  can  be  made.  It  is  very  advisable 
that  all  such  materials  shall  be  deposited  outside  of  the  river  channels, 
and  in  such  a  manner  that  they  can  not  reenter  these  channels. 

HUDSON  RIVER  AT  ALBANY. 

The  city  of  Albany  has  few  modern  wharves,  but  is  engaged  now 
in  the  work  of  making  extensive  improvements  to  its  water  front. 
One  piece  of  concrete  bulkhead  356  feet  lon^  has  already  been  con- 
structed, and  plans  have  been  made  for  purcliasing  private  property 
along  one-hair  mile  additional  and  making  the  requisite  improve- 
ments.   Of  this,  800  feet  has  already  been  purchased. 

The  only  special  improvement  desired  at  Albany  is  the  widening 
of  the  river  opposite  and  below  Island  Creek  to  an  extent  suliicient 
to  allow  for  tlie  assemblage  of  tows  from  boats  which  have  passed 
through  the  canals.  Inasmuch  as  such  space  is  requisite  for  the  proper 
accommodation  of  the  regular  through  trafhc,  it  would  seem  hardly 
just  to  class  this  work  as  one  of  value  to  Albany  alone.  Should  that, 
however,  be  deemed  necessary,  it  can  be  taken  as  the  width  proposed 
below  the  lower  bridge  at  Albany  additional  to  the  regular  400-foot  * 
channel  width.  The  estimated  cost  of  this  work  is  $105,000.  It  has 
been  included  in  the  general  estimate  for  the  river. 

Three  bridges  cross  the  Hudson  at  Albany.  The  draw^  spans  of 
two  of  these  bridges  have  already  been  a  cause  of  complaint  by  per- 
sons navigating  the  river.  These  complaints  were  made  the  subject 
of  an  official  investigation  by  the  War  Department  in  1908,  w^hen  it 
was  decided  to  direct  no  extensive  changes  unless  future  demands 
of  commerce  incident  to  the  opening  of  the  Erie  barge  canal  should 
so  require.  Further  report  on  this  question  will  be  made  at  a  later 
date. 

HUDSON  RIVER  AT  COEYMANS. 

Since  the  construction  of  the  West  Shore  Railroad  the  commerce 
of  this  port  has  fallen  from  a  bargeload  of  freight  daily  to  one  per 
week.  Little  interest  it  taken  by  the  citizens  of  Coeymans  in  this 
work,  the  water  commerce  being  practically  all  confined  to  one 
shipper,  who  owns  the  entire  wharf  front,  but  who  allow^s  boats  to 
land  at  a  small  charge.  The  channel  in  the  rear  of  the  dike  has 
shoaled  to  about  7  feet  depth  at  mean  low  water.  The  improve- 
ment desired  is  to  deepen  this  channel  to  9  feet  at  mean  low  water,  so 
as  to  permit  the  local  passenger  boats  to  land.  The  estimated  cost 
of  this  dredging  is  $6,200.  To  assist  in  maintaining  the  dredged 
channel  when  made  it  is  proposed  to  shorten  the  middle  ground  dike 


106 


HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


by  removinjj  its  lower  end  for  200  feet,  at  a  cost  of  $3,000,  making  the 
total  cost  of  the  work  desired  at  Coeymans  $9,200. 

In  my  opinion  the  harbor  is  not  worthy  of  improvement.  It 
would  be  more  reasonable  and  better  for  the  maintenance  of  the  Hud- 
son River  channel  to  have  the  town  authorities  build  a  bridge  to  the 
ilike  and  a  landing  on  its  front  under  a  permit  from  the  Secretar}^  of 
Vrar. 

To  recapitulate,  attention  is  again  invited  to  the  fact  that  this 
report  is  submitted  on  account  of  the  urgent  need  of  beginning  work 
at  and  near  the  State  dam,  in  order  that  the  barge  canal  commerce  may 
have  access  to  the  river  as  soon  as  the  canals  are  opened.  The  de- 
tailed project  has  not  yet  been  completed  for  the  reason  that  its 
formation  was  not  directed  by  Congress  until  March,  1909,  and  the 
field  work  could  not  be  completed  until  the  end  of  November.  Much 
study  is  yet  required  before  definite  recommendations  can  be  made 
as  to  the  details  of  the  work.  The  estimates  are  approximate  only, 
but  are  believed  to  be  sufTicient  to  cover  the  work  required. 

These  estimates  are  as  follows: 


Channel  from  Waterf ord  to  dam   |44,  000 

Lock,  dam,  and  piers   547, 100 

Clearing  river  bed  immediately  below  dam   lOG,  250 

Removal  of  old  lock  and  dam   79,  407 

Basin  below  lock   239,  270 

Improvement  between  head  of  Adams  Island  and  head  of  Breaker  Island   1,  328,  882 

Improvement  from  head  of  Breaker  Island  to  deep  water  at  Hudson   2,  369,  695 


Total  4,714,604 

Engineering  and  contingencies,  10  per  cent   471,  460 


Grand  total   5, 186,064 


Of  the  above  the  estimated  cost  of  the  work  properly  chargeable  to 
the  harbor  of  Troy  is  $420,559;  that  for  the  harbor  at  Albany  is 
$105,000. 

The  cost  of  the  work  estimated  for  Coeymans,  amounting  to  $9,200, 
is  not  included  in  the  above  figures. 

If  this  project  is  approved  and  the  work  authorized,  provision 
should  be  made  for  executing  the  work  under  continuing  contracts. 
Unless  the  dredging  and  rock  excavation  can  be  carried  on  under  a 
large  contract,  it  is  probable  that  work  of  that  character  above  and 
below  the  dam  can  be  done  most  advantageously  separately,  as 
separate  plants  would  have  to  be  provided,  on  account  of  the  diffi- 
culty of  passing  the  sloop  lock.  It  is  important  that  the  work  in  the 
lock  and  dam  should  be  started  at  the  earliest  practicable  date,  and 
that  the  connecting  channel  between  the  new  lock  and  the  existing 
channel  below  should  be  started  in  time  to  permit  its  completion 
immediately  after  the  new  lock  and  dam  are  built,  in  order  that  the 
commerce  through  the  canals  may  be  stopped  for  as  short  a  time  as 
practicable.  The  sum  which  can  be  expended  advantageously  in  the 
coming  year  under  a  continuing  contract  for  the  construction  of  a 
lock  and  dam  is  $300,000.  The  entire  sum  should  be  made  available 
within  two  years  in  order  that  the  work  can  be  completed  within 
three  working  seasons. 

In  the  work  below  the  dam  $1,000,000  can  be  expended  advan- 
tageously in  the  next  working  season.  The  money  should  be  made 
availafble  for  the  improvement  of  the  Hudson  between  Waterford 
and  New  York  Harbor. 


• 


HUDSON  EIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


107 


Should  Congress  decide  to  enter  upon  the  execution  of  tliis  project, 
the  legislation  enacted  should  contain  provisions  somewhat  as  oi.t- 
lined  in  page  19  of  this  report.    Provisions  for  continuing  contracts 
for  all  or  a  part  of  the  works  would  also  be  advantageous  and  • 
economical. 

The  value  of  the  commerce  of  the  Hudson  River  has  been  set  forth 
many  times  in  official  reports,  and  it  seems  to  be  unnecessary  to  repeat 
the  statistics.  The  State  of  New  York  has  deemed  it  to  its  interests 
to  authorize  the  expenditure  of  $101,000,000  for  the  improvement  of 
internal  waterways  of  the  State  which  must  use  the  Pludson  River  as 
their  principal  outlet.  These  State  waterways  will  form  connecting 
lines  between  the  Atlantic  coast  and  the  Great  Lakes  on  the  one 
hand  and  the  lower  Atlantic  coast  of  the  United  States  and  the  water- 
ways of  Canada  on  the  other. 

The  improvement  of  the  Hudson  River  to  the  depth  necessary  to 
permit  the  passage  of  the  moderate-sized  boats  for  which  the  State 
canals  are  designed,  and  to  a  wadth  sufficient  to  provide  for  the  num- 
ber of  such  boats  which  the  history  of  the  Erie  Canal  shows  will 
probably  traverse  these  waterways,  seems  to  be  a  reasonable  proposi- 
tion, even  without  a  consideration  of  the  needs  of  the  commerce  of 
the  Hudson.  In  my  opinion  the  Hudson  River  is  worthy  of  such 
improvement. 

Very  respectfully,  W.  M.  Black, 

Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers. 

The  Chief  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army. 

[Second  indorsement.] 

Board  of  Engineers  for  Rivers  and  Harbors, 

Washington,  D.  C,  January  31,  1910, 

Respectfully  returned  to  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  U.  S.  Army. 

1.  The  district  officer  presents  herein  a  plan  of  improvement  for 
the  Hudson  River,  covering  the  reach  from  deep  water  in  the 
lower  river  to  Waterford,  the  object  being  to  afford  suitable  naviga- 
tion facilities  for  the  commerce  of  the  Hudson  River  and  that  which 
is  anticipated  from  the  completion  of  the  New  York  State  canals. 
From  this  report  it  appears  that  one  of  the  State  canals  (Lake  jCliam- 
plain)  will  be  completed  in  about  three  years,  and  that  if  this  part 
of  the  Hudson  River,  over  w^hich  the  commerce  of  the  canal  must 
pass,  is  to  be  improved  in  time  to  meet  the  development  of  the 
State  waterways,  work  should  be  begun  as  soon  as  practicable.  In 
view  of  this  fact  the  district  officer  has  submitted  his  report  in 
advance  of  complete  detailed  studies  and  estimates.  The  general 
plan,  however,  appears  to  have  had  careful  consideration,  and  while 
the  district  officer  states  that  the  estimates  are  approximate,  he 
believes  they  are  sufficient  to  cover  the  work  proposed  and  that  the 
careful  study  of  details  which  will  be  necessary  before  the  work  is 
undertaken  will  not  seriously  affect  the  general  plan  or  estimates. 
The  district  officer,  w^ho  is  also  division  engineer,  is  of  opinion  that 
the  improvement  is  worthy  of  being  undertaken  by  the  General 
Government  in  accordance  w^ith  the  plan  and  estimates  proposed 
by  him. 

2.  It  is  proposed  to  give  an  available  depth  of  water  of  not  less 
than  12  feet  at  all  stages,  the  width  of  the  main  channel  below  Troy 


108  HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


to  be  400  feet,  but  widened  into  a  basin  at  Albany.  In  the  vicinity 
of  Troy  the  width  above  the  dam  is  to  be  200  feet,  widening  into  a 
basin  just  below  the  dam.  For  a  short  distance  below  this  basin 
,  there  will  be  a  double  channel,  one  on  either  side  of  Adams  Island, 
with  widths,  respectively,  of  150  and  200  feet.  Between  the  Dela- 
ware and  Hudson  and  Congress  street  bridges  the  width  is  to  be  500 
feet,  below  which  it  narrows  to  the  proposed  general  width  of  400 
feet.  The  work  proposed  in  the  vicinity  of  Troy  involves  the  con- 
struction of  a  new  lock  and  dam  and  the  removal  of  the  old  one. 
Consideration  has  been  given  to  the  advisability  of  improving  the 
river  at  Coeymans  with  a  view  to  securing  a  suitable  width  and 
depth  in  the  channel  along  the  village  front  behind  the  Government 
dike,  as  called  for  by  the  act  under  which  this  report  is  made.  In- 
vestigation failed  to  disclose  any  great  need  of  improvement  at  this 
locality,  and  for  reasons  given  the  district  officer  believes  it  is  not 
advisable  for  the  General  Government  to  undertake  this  work,  and 
in  this  view  the  Board  concurs. 

3.  The  work  recommended  by  the  district  officer  and  its  estimated 
cost  may  be  summarized  as  follows: 


Channel  from  Waterford  to  dam   $44,  000 

Lock,  dam,  and  piers   547, 100 

Clearing  river  bed  immediately  below  dam   106,  250 

Removal  of  old  lock  and  dam   79,  407 

Basin  below  lock   239,  270 

Improvement  between  head  of  Adams  Island  and  Breakers  Island   1,  328,  882 

Improvement  from  Breakers  Island  to  deep  water  below   2,  369,  695 

Engineering  and  contingencies   471..  460 


Total   5,186,064 


The  district  officer  does  not  give  the  estimated  cost  of  maintenance, 
but  this  will  probably  not  be  excessive. 

4.  Wliile  the  improvement  now  under  consideration  would  greatly 
stimulate  and  add  to  the  convenience  of  handling  the  commerce  of  the 
Hudson  River,  its  principal  importance  is  its  relation  to  the  great 
work  being  done  by  the  State  of  New  York  in  the  development  of  its 
canals,  upon  which  it  is  to  expend  more  than  $100,000,000.  Without 
further  improvement  of  this  reach  the  full  value  of  the  work  by  the 
State  can  not  be  realized.  It  is  the  opinion  of  the  Board  that  this 
improvement  is  of  sufficient  importance  to  the  general  public  to  jus- 
tify its  cost,  and  that  it  is  advisable  for  the  General  Government  to 
undertake  the  work,  contingent,  however,  upon  all  existing  water- 
power  rights  or  privileges  affected  by  the  improvement  being  extin- 
guished by  the  State  of  New  York. 

5.  It  is  understood  that  both  plans  and  estimates  are  general  in 
character  and  require  further  careful  study,  particularly  with  refer- 
ence to  the  low-water  plane  and  its  bearing  upon  the  elevation  of  the 
lower  sill  of  the  lock.  It  is  also  deemed  advisable  to  give  further 
consideration  to  the  dimensions  of  the  lock  chamber. 

6.  In  compliance  with  the  provisions  of  section  13  of  the  act  of  March 
3,  1909,  the  district  officer  describes  existing  and  proposed  wharves 
and  terminal  facilities,  and  attention  is  respectfully  invited  to  his 
remarks  on  this  subject.  With  reference  to  water  power  to  be  devel- 
oped by  the  new  dam,  he  states  that  it  is  probable  that  there  will  be 
surplus  water  sufficient  to  develop  at  least  about  1,400  horsepower, 
a  small  portion  of  which  can  be  used  for  operating  and  lighting  the 
lock,  and  the  remainder  can  be  sold. 


i 


HUDSON  mV^ER,  NEW  YORK. 


109 


He  recommends  that  if  the  improvement  be  adopted,  the  Se-cretary 
of  War  be  authorized  to  purchase,  by  condemnation  or  otherwise, 
under  the  general  statutes  of  the  State  of  New  York,  the  real  property 
necessary  for  the  improvement,  and  also  to  grant  leases  or  licenses  for 
the  use  of  the  surplus  water  for  water  power  created  by  the  dam,  at 
such  a  rate  and  on  such  conditions  and  for  such  periods  of  time  as 
may  seem  to  be  just,  equitable,  and  expedient;  the  said  leases  or 
licenses  to  be  limited  to  the  use  of  the  surplus  water  not  required  for 
navigation  and  to  a  period  not  exceeding  twenty  j^ears;  for  the  occu- 
pation of  such  land  belonging  to  the  United  States  on  the  Hudson 
River  as  may  be  required  for  power  flumes  or  other  industrial  pur- 
poses not  inconsistent  with  the  requirements  of  navigation;  and  to 
construct  such  work  or  works  appurtenant  to  the  dam  as  may  be 
necessary  for  the  development  and  use  of  said  water  power.  In  this 
recommendation  the  Board  concurs,  it  being  understood  that  all 
existing  water-power  rights  shall  have  first  been  extinguished  by  the 
State  of  New  York,  as  recommended  above  in  paragraph  4.  The 
Board  reports  that  there  are  no  other  subjects  so  related  to  the  proj- 
ect proposed  that  they  may  be  coordinated  therewith  to  lessen  the 
cost  and  compensate  the  Government  for  expenditures  made  in  the 
interests  of  navigation. 

For  the  Board: 

TVm.  T.  Rossell, 
Colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers, 

Senior  Member  of  the  Board, 


LETTER  OF  THE  CHAMBER  OF  COMMERCE  OF  TROY,  N.  T, 

Troy,  N.  Y.,  July  19,  1909. 

Dear  Sir:  In  compliance  with  your  recent  written  and  verbal  requests  that  the 
Chamber  of  Commerce  of  the  City  of  Troy  furnish  you  with  certain  information,  we 
•  beg  to  submit  the  following  facts,  figures,  and  reasons  from  which,  we  believe,  the 
inferences  flow  that  the  business  and  commerce  of  the  city  of  Troy  necessitate  exten- 
sive improvements  of  the  Hudson  River  at  Troy  and  justify  the  expenditure  by  the 
General  Government  of  a  large  sum  of  money  therefor;  that  a  wide  extent  of  territory 
will  be  served  thereby;  that  the  city  of  Troy  will  supplement  the  efforts  of  the  Federal 
Government  by  proAnding  public  wharves  and  warehouses  and  ample  faciUties  for 
handling  freight  and  ^vi^l  furnish  adequate  assurances  that  it  will  maintain  any 
improvement  that  may  be  made  in  widening  and  deepening  the  river,  by  preventing 
the  shoaling  of  the  deepened  area  from  deposits  from  the  city  itself,  by  sewers  or  other- 
wise, and  by  periodical  removal  of  such  deposits,  should  any  be  formed;  that  the 
interests  of  the  city  of  Troy  will  be  promoted;  that  a  wide  extent  of  surrounding  terri- 
tory will  be  greatly  benefited;  that  the  annual  gain  from  the  decrease  in  the  cost  of 
transportation  to  the  people  at  large  who  would  use  Troy  as  a  port  would  be  greater 
than  the  annual  interest  on  the  money  to  be  expended  by  the  Government;  and  that 
the  benefit  to  be  obtained  from  the  investment  of  the  people's  money  will  be  distri- 
buted at  large  amon^  the  people. 

The  city  of  Troy  is  situate  on  the  east  bank  of  the  Hudson  River  at  the  head  of 
tide-water  navigation.  It  has  3  miles  of  dock  and  over  50  miles  of  paved  streets  and 
a  population  of  at  least  80,000.  Outside  of  Greater  New  York  it  is  the  fifth  cit^  in 
population  in  the  State.  It  is  preeminently  an  industrial  and  manufacturing  city. 
It  is  surrounded  by  prosperous  and  growing  communities  of  like  character.  The 
Hudson  River  in  years  past  (and  for  aught  we  know,  at  the  present  time)  bears  upon 
its  waters  a  commerce  greater  than  that  of  any  other  river  in  this  country. 

The  State  of  New  York  is  engaged  in  expending  many  millions  of  dollars  for  the 
enlargement  of  the  Erie  and  Champlain  canals.  Both  of  these  canals  will  empty 
their  waters  into  the  Hudson  River  at  or  near  Troy.  The  vast  commerce  which  it 
is  confidently  believed  will  be  carried  on  the  waters  of  the  enlarged  canals  will  enter 
the  Hudson  River  opposite  the  boundaries  of  the  city  of  Troy.  The  General  Govern- 
ment has  expended  a  considerable  sum  of  money  in  deepening  and  widening  the 
channel  of  the  Hudson  River  up  to  and  at  Troy,  but  unfortunately  that  channel  is 


no 


HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK 


out  in  the  river  at  considerable  and  varying  distances  from  the  dock  line  or  from 
any  established  harbor  line.  The  result  is  that  in  many  instances  vessels  of  con- 
siderable draft  navigating  in  that  channel  can  not  reach  the  dock  lines  and  there 
receive  or  discharge  cargo,  or  they  are  very  seriously  delayed  in  so  doing  until  the 
tide  rises,  and  thus  the  object  which  the  Government  had  in  mind  in  making  this 
channel  has  been  in  part  defeated. 

Attached  hereto  are  excerpts  from  some  of  the  letters  received  by  us  from  some  of 
our  leading  merchants  and  manufacturers  in  response  to  requests  for  information  with 
respect  to  tonnage,  and  reasons  for  improvement  of  the  river  at  Troy, 

Abundant  testimony  was  and  can  be  given  you  by  leading  merchants  and  manu- 
facturers that  in  former  years  they  received  very  large  quantities,  and  in  some  cases 
all,  of  their  freight  by  boat  alongside  their  docks,  and  that  other  local  enterprises  which 
desired  to  receive  or  ship  freight  in  the  same  way  had  the  free  use  of  these;  but  that 
at  the  present  time  and  for  some  years  past  they  have  been  unable,  owing  to  the  want 
of  depth  in  the  river,  to  land  vessels  at  their  docks,  and  thus  large  quantities  of  coal, 
ore,  and  manufactured  products  have  had  to  be  transported  by  railroad,  to  the  detri- 
ment of  river  commerce  and  increased  cost  to  merchants  and  manufacturers. 

It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  within  a  few  years  the  railroads  of  the  country  have  been 
unable  to  handle  all  the  freight  delivered  to  them.  Serious  congestion  followed.  This 
was  true  of  the  Troy  district  as  well  as  of  other  portions  of  the  State  and  country.  The 
terminals  of  the  several  railroads  in  the  city  of  Troy  have  been  taxed  to  their  utmost 
capacity  and  are  limited  in  extent.  The  only  and  the  most  effective  relief  that  can 
be  secured  is  by  the  improvement  and  development  of  water  commerce  and  facilities. 

The  General  Government  has  obtained  and  published  statistics  which  have  an 
important  bearing  upon  the  business  and  commerce  of  the  city  of  Troy.  These  sta- 
tistics are  to  be  found  in  Bulletin  59,  issued  by  the  Department  of  Commerce  and 
Labor,  Bureau  of  Census,  and  is  a  census  of  manufactures  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
1905.  The  Government  states  that  these  figures  are  "confined  to  manufacturing 
establishments  conducted  under  what  is  known  as  the  factory  system,  thus  excluding 
the  neighborhood  industries  and  hand  trades." 

We  find  the  following  figures  as  to  Troy: 


All  industries   311 

Proprietors  and  firm  members   310 

Salaried  officials,  clerks,  etc  .-   1,  409 

Wage-earners   19,114 

Cost  of  materials  used   $13,  746,  280 

Value  of  products,  including  custom  work  and  repairing   $31,  860,  829 


This  for  one  year  only. 

The  above  figures,  of  course,  take  no  account  of  the  freight  received  and  sent  out 
by  the  proprietors  of  wholesale  stores,  such  as  the  hardware,  furniture,  groceries, 
clothing,  and  dry  goods  houses,  or  the  stores  doing  both  a  wholesale  and  retail  busi- 
ness, or  the  big  stores  doing  purely  a  retail  business.  All  these  stores  handle  thou- 
sands of  packages  which  do  not  figure  in  this  bulletin  either  in  the  cost  of  materials 
used  or  the  value  of  products  of  manufacturing  establishments. 

Nor  do  the  above  figures  represent  sufficiently  the  present  aggregate,  extent,  value, 
and  importance  of  the  industries  of  Troy.  They  should  be  considered  in  forming 
opinion  as  to  probable  commerce  upon  the  river.    For  example: 

It  is  well  known  that  Troy  is  the  home  of  the  collar  industry,  which  is  rapidly 
growing. 

Over  nine-tenths  of  the  collars  and  cuffs  made  in  this  country  are  produced  from  the 
factories  of  the  30  manufacturers  of  Troy;  the  making  of  shirts  is  a  considerable  portion 
of  the  business  of  Troy  manufacturers,  though  it  is  a  more  widely  scattered  industry. 

These  are  the  latest  and  best  statistics  obtainable  with  respect  to  the  Troy  collar, 
cuff,  and  shirt  business: 

Niimber  of  employees,  20,000;  capital  invested,  $15,000,000;  the  amount  dispensed 
in  this  district  for  wages  for  the  collar,  cuff,  and  shirt  industry  for  the  year  1907  was 
more  than  $13,140,000. 

These  factories  are  mostly  situated  on  the  river  bank. 

Here,  too,  is  the  Burden  Iron  Works,  the  largest  horseshoe-making  establishment  in 
the  world,  and  where  immense  quantities  of  merchant  bar  iron,  stay-bolt  iron,  boiler 
rivets,  and  socket  bolts  are  also  turned  out.  These  works  are  on  the  river  bank. 
North  of  them  is  the  old  and  well-known  stove  foundry  of  Fuller,  Warren  &  Co.,  and 
north  of  that  company  are  the  extensive  works  of  the  Ludlow  Valve  Company,  where 
valves  of  all  kinds  and  sizes  are  made.  Both  of  these  establishments  are  on  the  river 
bank. 

The  manufacturing  industries  of  the  city  of  Troy  are  of  the  most  varied  character. 
It  has  the  leading  civil  engineering  and  surveying  instrument  factory  in  the  world, 


HUDSON  RIVEB,  NEW  YORK. 


HI 


and  among  other  things  is  engaged  exclusively  in  the  manufacture  of  chains,  brushes, 
iron  tubing,  malt  beverages,  paper  boxes,  paint,  knit  goods,  and  laundry  machinery. 
Troy  has  an  assessed  property  valuation  of  upward  of  $56,000,000.    There  are — 

Persons  and  concerns  engaged  in  manufacturing   1,  207 

Persons  and  concerns  engaged  in  commercial  avocations   1,  977 

Persons  engaged  in  the  various  professions  1,  082 

Of  the  above  there  are  incorporated  manufacturing  and  business  'Companies —  175 
There  are  different  transportation  companies   10 

The  foregoing  represents  an  army  of  industrial  workers,  a  laige  annual  output,  and 
a  large  annual  pay  roll. 

It  is  the  converging  point  of  four  trolley  systems,  covering  nine  counties  in  eastern 
New  York,  and  extending  from  Lake  George  to  Hudson,  with  additional  lines  to 
Massachusetts  planned. 

A  public  market  covering  a  city  block. 

Ten  newspapers — four  daily^  three  Sunday,  two  weekly,  and  a  labor  weekly;  also 
two  trade  magazines. 

A  savings  bank,  eight  national  banks,  two  trust  companies,  three  building  and  loan 
associations,  four  large  department  stores,  many  prominent  wholesale  houses  and 
large  retail  establishments. 

Three  hospitals,  a  sanitarium,  four  orphan  asylums,  a  reformatory,  county  house  of 
industry,  six  homes,  humane  society,  three  Y.  M.  C.  A.'s,  young  women's  association, 
Salvation  Army  temple,  splendid  public  buildings,  mostly  new;  post-office,  court- 
house, city  hall,  music  hall,  finest  in  northern  New  Y'ork;  state  armory,  Troy  Public 
Library,  with  40,000  books;  ten  fine  clubhouses,  and  five  fraternity  houses. 

Troy  has  72  churches,  exclusive  of  chapels  and  misj-ions,  and  58  schorls,  which 
include  2  high  schools,  training  school,  the  Em.ma  Willard  School,  and  the  Rensselaer 
Polytechnic  Institute.    It  also  has  330  clubs  and  miscellaneous  societies. 

There  is  one  very  noticeable  thing  in  the  figures  and  that  is  the  large  and  unusual 
percentage  of  persons  who  are  engaged  in  gainful  occupations  to  the  total  popula  ion 
of  the  city. 

Opposite  the  city  of  Troy  and  at  the  junction  of  the  Mohawk  and  Hudson  rivers  is 
the  city  of  Cohoes.  The  same  bulletin  above  referred  to  gives  the  following  dataas 
to  that  city  for  1905: 

Number  of  industries   95 

Value  of  materials  used   $6,283,  545 

Value  of  products   $10,  289,  822 

Opposite  the  city  of  Troy  and  so  situated  that  they  are  part  of  Troy's  industrial 
community  and  essentially  identified  and  dependent  upoifthe  prosperity  of  Troy  are 
the— 

City  of  Watervliet,  with  a  population  of   14,  600 

Green  Island,  with  a  population  of   4,  878 

Waterford,  with  a  population  of   6,  010 

Making  a  total  of   25, 488 

Statement  of  local  tonnage  and  value  of  Troy's  outgoing  and  incoming  water 
trafiic  on  the  Hudson  River  m  1908  as  reported  by  such  of  our  merchants  and  manu- 
facturers as  responded  to  the  request  made  by  our  chamber  of  commerce  for  the  pur- 
pose of  this  report. 


Lumber  and  timber  

General  merchandise  

Raw  material — muslin  and  linen  

Grain,  malt,  etc  

Coal,  iron,  sand,  and  stone  

Manufactured  products  

Fruit  and  general  produce  

Cement,  brick,  fire  clay,  ice,  and  plaster  

Drugs,  paints,  oil,  glass,  etc  

Total  

Estimated  increase  

To  this  may  be  added: 

Hudson  Navigation  Co.  (Citizens'  Line),  reported  to  State  for  1908 
Glens  Falls  Cement  Co.: 

Coal  

Cement  and  plaster  


Tons. 


16, 100 

65, 854 
25, 555 
10,200 
196,952 
27,274 
2,985 
174, 555 
-  1,385 


Value. 


?212,900 
5,112,000 
8,099.:-!00 
710, 000 
975, 785 
7,987,047 
197,000 
507.800 
295, 000 


728,340 


20, 594 
126,755 


112 


HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


Canal  tonnage  passing  through  Troy  in  1908   1,  366,  229 

Passengers  carried  on  ferries  and  boats  during  same  period: 

Ferries   1,474,300 

Albany  and  Troy  Steamboat  Company   876,  000 

Hudson  Navigation  Company   41,  548 

The  foregoing  figures  in  so  far  as  they  purport  to  be  actual  we  believe  may  be 
relied  upon,  and  in* so  far  as  estimated  that  the  estimate  is  conservative. 

An  attempt  has  been  made  also  to  procure  and  include  the  actual  railroad  tonnage 
appertaining  to  Troy  for  the  year  1908.  Owing  to  the  limited  time  given,  and  the 
failure  on  the  part  of  many  of  whom  inquiries  were  made  to  reply  in  time  for  this 
letter,  a  full  and  accurate  statement  can  not  now  be  presented;  but  the  following 
statement,  based  upon  comparison  of  responses  and  ratio  of  amounts  given  is  believed 
to  be  not  only  conservative,  but  much  less  than  the  fact  warrants;  at  least  it  is  the 
best  statement  which  can  be  made  without  further  diligent  and  systematic  effort, 
but  does  not  purport  to  be  more  than  the  result  of  an  effort  at  approximation. 

Railway  tonnage  in  and  out  of  Troy,  N.  Y.,  and  value,  1908. 


Lumber  and  timber  

Manufactured  products  

Raw  material — muslin  and  linen 
Brick,  stone,  sand,  and  fire  clay. 

Coal  and  iron  

General  merchandise  

Fruit  and  produce  

Total  


14,221 
117,920 
33,939 
18,450 
479.759 
102,989 
<iOO 


767,878 


It  is  fair  to  assume  that  the  cost  of  materials  used  and  value  of  products  manufac- 
tured, as  indicated  by  the  foregoing,  represents  tens  of  thousands  of  tons  of  freight. 

Because  the  location  of  the  manufacturing  and  commercial  establishments,  and  also 
because  of  the  cheaper  cost  of  water  transportation,  a  very  great  proportion  of  this 
tonnage  would  be  carried  by  water,  if  the  river  channel  was  extended  to  the  dock  line 
and  Troy  was  made  a  public  harbor. 

A  fair  measure  of  the  extent  and  growing  prosperity  of  the  city  is  reflected  in  the 
business  of  the  Troy  post-office. 

There  has  been  for  several  years  a  steady  growth  in  the  postal  revenues.  Four 
years  ago  the  receipts  of  the  office,  exclusive  of  the  money-order  business,  were  less 
than  $200,000.  In  the  fiscal  year  1906-7  the  receipts  passed  this  figure,  reaching 
1201,474.07,  while  during  the  fiscal  year  1907-8,  when  the  great  majority  of  the  post- 
offices  about  the  country  were  reporting  heavy  falling  off  in  business,  the  Troy  office 
showed  a  decrease  of  about  $1,400  only,  remaining  above  the  $200,000  mark.  During 
the  fiscal  year  closing  June  30  last  the  receipts  were  practically  $208,000,  thus  showing 
the  rapid  recovery  and  advancement  of  the  business  interests  of  the  city  from  the 
period  of  depression. 

The  money-order  business  of  the  office  has  gained  steadily  as  well  as  the  stamp 
receipts. 

There  are  connected  with  the  Troy  office  in  various  parts  of  the  city  8  numbered 
stations  for  the  sale  of  stamps  and  the  transaction  of  money-order  and  registry  business, 
while  in  the  section  formerly  Lansingburg  there  is  a  carrier  station  to  which  are 
attached  7  carriers  and  3  clerks. 

During  the  last  few  years  there  have  been  added  to  the  service  5  rural  free-delivery 
routes.  In  about  the  same  period  there  have  been  added  to  the  force  of  the  main 
office  6  clerks  and  7  carriers,  making  the  present  force  consist  of  33  clerks  and  45  car- 
riers, while  2  laborers  have  been  added  to  the  force  necessary  to  care  for  the  business 
of  the  postal-card  and  stamped-envelope  subagency. 

Troy  has  one  of  the  four  large  subagencies  established  about  the  country  by  the 
Post-Office  Department  for  the  distribution  of  postal  cards,  staraped  envelopes,  and 
newspaper  wrappers.  The  envelope  and  newspaper  wrapper  portion  of  the  agency  has 
been  established  by  the  department  within  the  last  few  months.  These  supplies  are 
all  received  in  carload  lots  and  distributed  on  orders  from  the  Post-Office  Department 
to  the  post-offices  in  this  section  of  the  country. 

The  United  States  Civil  Service  Commission  has  for  a  long  time  been  constantly 
increasing  the  number  of  examinations  held  in  Troy  on  account  of  location  and  superior 
facilities. 


HUDSON  RIVEE,  NEW  YORK. 


113 


Changes  in  City  Directory  of  1909: 

New  names  added  in  preparing  directory,  1909   6,  524 

Names  erased  in  compiling  directory  of  1909,  which  includes  the  names  of  those 
who  have  died  or  removed  from  the  city  during  the  year   5,  572 

Increase   952 

Troy  is  a  great  distributing  point. 

The  New  York  Central,  the  Boston  and  Maine,  and  the  Delaware  and  Hudson 
railroads  enter  here.  Vast  quantities  of  goods  are  brought  here  by  railroads  from 
Massachusetts,  Vermont,  and  northern  New  York,  and  transshipment  is  made  both 
by  rail  and  by  water. 

The  Champlain  and  Erie  canals  enter  the  Hudson  here. 

It  should  also  be  noted  that  during  the  present  year  the  Hudson  Navigation  Company 
has  placed  in  operation  between  Troy  and  New  York  two  new,  splendid,  steel-frame 
boats,  each  330  feet  in  length,  and  that  these  carry  thousands  of  passengers  and  thou- 
sands of  tons  of  freight. 

We  have,  in  addition,  a  freight  line  running  daily  between  Troy  and  other  cities  on 
the  Hudson  River,  like  Albany,  Hudson,  Kingston,  Poughkeepsie,  Newburgli.  There 
is  also  the  old  and  well-established  Murray's  line  of  barges  between  Troy  and  New 
York. 

Something  more  than  a  year  ago  a  petition  was  presented  by  navigation  interests 
to  the  Secretary  of  War,  asking  that  the  draw  openings  of  the  two  upper  bridges  at 
Albany  be  widened  and  the  piers  relocated.  Among  others,  that  petition  was  signed 
by  the  Cornell  Steamboat  Company,  operating  53  tugs  and  steamboats;  by  the  Inland 
Seamen's  Union,  operating  360  canal  boats;  by  the  Erie  Boatman's  Union,  represent- 
ing 500  boats;  by  the  Catskill  and  Albany  Steamboat  Company ;  by  the  Central  Hudson 
Steamboat  Company;  by  Robinson,  Baxter  &  Dissossway,  operating  24  barges  and  tugs; 
by  the  Lake  Champlain  Transportation  Company,  operating  250  canal  boats  for  freight 
between  New  York  and  Canada;  and  by  the  Jesse  Billings  estate,  operating  about 
35  boats.  All  these  companies  or  individuals  do  business  at  the  city  of  Troy,  or  oper- 
ate boats  upon  the  Hudson  River  by  and  above  this  city.  They  represent  a  great 
commercial  interest  and  a  vast  property  interest,  which  is  deeply  interested  in  the 
improvement  of  the  Hudson  River, 

The  IFnited  States  inspector  of  steam  vessels  at  Albany  reports: 

Number  of  boats  engaged  on  upper  Hudson  in  towing,  etc   82 

There  are  large  freight  boats   18 

In  addition,  the  Citizens  Line  has   2 

The  Albany  and  Troy  Steamboat  Company  has   5 

And  there  are  ferryboats   5 

It  is  confidently  asserted  that  if  there  were  created  at  Troy  a  public  harbor  with 
sufTicient  conveniences  to  accommodate  traffic,  1he  traffic  would  come.  It  is  well 
known  that  no  railroad  was  ever  built  for  the  traffic  existing  at  the  time  of  its  construc- 
tion, but  that  the  traffic  came  with  the  increased  facilities.  The  topography  of  the 
section  of  the  country  along  the  Hudson  from  Troy  south  is  such  that  the  caijacity  of 
the  railroads  can  hardly  be  increased,  the  expense  being  prohibitive. 

Troy  merchants  now  suffer  because  of  the  delay  of  three  or  four  days,  or  longer, 
required  by  the  railroads  to  transport  merchandise  between  Troy  and  New  York, 
when  by  water  the  time  required  would  be  only  for  a  day  or  a  night.  A  water  route 
to  and  from  Troy  would  relieve  the  congestion  which  even  now  hampers  greatly  the 
railroads  operating  along  the  Hudson  from  Troy  to  New  York. 

It  would  seem  to  be  entirely  feasible  and  practicable  to  operate  car  floats  or  barges 
between  Troy  and  New  York  for  the  accommodation  of  heavy  bulk  freight,  such  as 
stone,  lumber,  and  like  commodities,  and  this  service  could  be  performed  at  a  cost 
not  much,  if  any,  in  excess  of  the  present  expense  of  lightering  freight  from  New  York 
terminals  of  the  railroads  to  coastwise  and  ocean  steamships,  and  also  to  connecting 
railroads. 

The  statement  is  made  that  this  month  a  Buffalo  concern  has  received  4  canal-boat 
loads  of  yellow  pine  lumber.  This  stock  was  brought  from  the  mills  in  the  South  to 
New  York  City  by  boat,  there  loaded  into  canal  boats  and  brought  up  the  canal  to  the 
Buffalo  Creek  and  towed  from  there  direct  to  the  company's  docks.  They  expect  to 
bring  in  considerable  of  this  stock  in  the  same  manner  before  the  season  closes. 

A  leading  Troy  lumber  firm  reports  that  it  is  in  like  manner  now  receiving  yellow 
pine  from  the  South  and  fir  from  the  Pacific  coast,  which  is  shipped  by  water  via 
Cape  Horn  and  thence  to  Troy,  and  expects  to  develop  its  trade  in  such  commodities 
in  that  manner,  because  of  the  decreased  expense,  even  with  that  effort,  over  the  coat 
of  transportation  by  rail. 

54559°— S.  Doc.  887,  62-2  8 


114  HUDSON  KIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


The  present  romparative  rates,  in  cents  per  hundred  pounds,  between  Troy  and 
Kew  York  City  are — 


First 

Second 

Third 

Fourth 

Fifth 

Sixth 

class. 

class. 

class. 

class. 

class. 

class. 

By  rail  

26 

21 

17 

13 

11 

9 

By  water: 

23 

19 

15 

12 

10 

B 

20 

16 

13 

10 

9 

8 

Cargo  lots  of  rough  commodities  can  be  transported  between  Troy  and  New  York 
by  water  at  approximately  $1  X)er  net  ton  as  against  $1.80  to  $2  by  rail. 

A  real  saving  would  be  effected  if,  instead  of  transferring  New  York  water-consigned 
freight  at  Troy,  the  loaded  cars  themselves  be  run  on  to  car  floats  and  thence  to  New 
York,  thus  eliminating  cost  of  transferring  the  freight  (which  approximates  25  to  40 
per  cent  of  the  total  transportation  cost,  New  York  to  Troy)  and  handling  the  loaded 
freight  and  empty  cars  much  the  same  as  it  is  now  done  across  the  Great  Lakes  and 
in  and  about  New  York  Harbor.  The  cost  of  towing  such  car  floats  between  New 
York  and  Troy  would  not  be  much,  if  any,  greater  than  the  present  cost  of  lightering 
freight  to  the  steamships  after  arrival  by  rail  or  water  in  New  York  City. 

Quite  a  saving  results  from  shipping  heavy  bulk  commodities  by  rail  and  water 
as  against  all  rail,  as,  for  example: 


Shipments  of  100  tons  lumber. 


Per  100 
pounds. 

Total  cost. 

Hoosac  Tunnel,  Massachusetts  to  New  York: 

All  rail  

Cents. 

Hi 

S296.efi 
220.66 

Rail  and  water- 

5 

Total  

Saving  in  the  transaction  $69.99  in  shipping  by  water  as  against 
rail. 

Shipment  of  100  tons  granite. 

Per  net  ton. 

Total  cost. 

Milford,  N.  H.,  to  New  York  City: 

$2.50 

1250.00 
212.80 

Rail  and  water — 

1.07i 
.25 
.80 

2.]2i 

Saving  by  water  as  against  rail,  $36.50. 

It  seems  reasonable  to  believe  that  with  the  completion  of  the  barge  canal,  the 
construction  of  the  system  of  internal  waterways  along  the  coast,  as  now  contemplated 
by  the  Government,  and  by  the  completion  of  a  sheltered  waterway  between  Norfolk 
and  New  York,  that  the  Hudson  River  is  destined  to  become  a  great  highway  of 
commerce,  the  usefulness  of  which  will  be  greatly  increased  when  the  Panama  Canal 
ie  opened  and  Pacific  coast  products  can  be  shipped  to  much  greater  advantage  by 
water  to  the  Great  Lakes,  and  that  Troy,  with  a  proper  harbor  and  harbor  facilities, 
will  become  a  great  water  terminal  and  shipping  port. 


HUDSON  ElVEK,  NEW  YORK 


115 


It  is  not  a  matter  of  possibility  or  of  probability,  but  a  practical  certainty. 

Contrasted  with  such  a  prospect,  the  river  is  now  a  menace  to  boats  and  a  daily  losa 
and  tax  upon  our  merchants. 

It  is,  however,  apparent  that  without  waiting  for  the  completion  of  these  great 
worka  Troy  now,  from  its  natural  situation  and  with  its  present  railroad  and  water 
connections,  has  a  great  opportunity  to  develop  a  river  commerce  to  and  from  New 
England  and  the  north,  and  to  and  from  the  great  West. 

Note  the  following  statement  showing  territory  naturally  tributary  to  Troy: 

Counties  of  State  of  New  York  bordering  on  Erie  Canal  (351  miles 
long)  and  population  in  1905: 

Population. 


Albany   171,497 

Cayuga   65,  309 

Erie   473,700 

Herkimer   53,  856 

Madison   39,690 

Monroe   239,434 

Montgomery   49,  928 

Niagara   84,  744 

Onondaga   178,  441 

Oneida   139,341 

Orleans   31,  323 

Saratoga   62,  658 

Schenectady   71,334 

Wayne   48,  567 


Total   1,709,819 

Counties  bordering  on  Champlain  Canal  (73  miles): 

Rensselaer   122,637 

Saratoga   62,  658 

Warren   31,395 

Washington   47,  376 


Total   264,066 

Counties  bordering  on  Lake  Champlain: 

Essex   32, 452 

Clinton   47,  282 


Total   79,734 


Total  New  York  State   2, 053, 619 

Counties  in  Vermont  bordering  on  Lake  Champlain  whose  natural  mar- 
ket is  Troy  and  vicinity  (Census  of  1900): 

Addison   21,  912 

Chittenden   39,  600 

Franklin   30,198 


91,  710 

Add  10  per  cent   9,171 


Total   100,881 

Other  counties  in  Vermont  whose  natural  market  is  Troy  and  vicinity  (cen- 
sus of  1900): 

Bennington   21,  705 

Rutland   44,209 

Orange   19,  313 

Washington   36,607 

Lamoille   12,  289 


134, 123 

Add  10  per  cent   13,  412 


Total  ■   147, 535 


116 


HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


Counties  of  western  ^Massachusetts  whose  nearest  waterway  and  market  is 
Troy  (census  of  1900) : 

Population. 

Berkshire   95,667 

Hampshire   175,  603 

Franklin   41,  209 

312  479 

Add  10  per  cent   31,'  247 

Total   343,726 

Grand  rotal   2,  645,  761 

Great  quantities  of  stone,  lumber,  potatoes,  and  other  bulk  freight  are  shipped  from 
New  England  to  New  York,  and  raw  materials  for  the  New  England  paper,  cloth  and 
other  manufacturing  industries  are  moved  in  the  reverse  direction. 

Sand,  coal,  stone,  and  lumber  come  from  the  South,  and  great  quantities  of  mer- 
chandise are  sent  from  the  North  to  southern  points.  The  products  of  the  great  North- 
west are  seeking  an  outlet  through  the  new  barge  canal. 

Troy  wants  this  commerce.  The  natural  route  for  this  traffic  is  by  way  of  Troy. 
With  an  enlarged  and  improved  river  channel,  the  river  open  throughout  the  year, 
a  harbor  sufficient  to  accommodate  boats  of  adequate  capacity  and  of  latest  improved 
construction,  with  facilities  for  the  convenient  and  economical  warehousing  and 
transfer  of  freight  between  boats  and  cars  and  warehouses,  the  great  proportion  of  this 
immense  traffic  would  use  Troy  as  a  port  and  Troy  would  become  a  great  river  terminal. 

This  consummation  would  not  only  benefit  every  man,  woman,  and  child  in  Troy, 
but  would  bring  prosperity  to  the  numerous  cities  and  villages  to  the  north,  east,  and 
west  within  a  radius  of  many  miles. 

The  river  is  here.  There  are  several  miles  of  water  front  capable  of  an  expansive 
development  consistent  with  the  largest  requirements  for  handling  and  storing  freight. 
The  possibilities  are  beyond  present  calculation,  but  the  facilities  and  resources  for 
meeting  these  possibilities  are  ample. 

Thus  far  we  have  considered  the  reasons  why  Congress  should  aid  Troy  for  com- 
mercial reasons.  Much  may  be  said  to  persuade  the  War  Department  to  urge  the  im- 
provement of  river  conditions  here  for  strategic  reasons. 

History  is  replete  with  patriotic  events,  the  result  of  which  depended  largely  upon 
the  advantages  of  this  geographic  locality.  Many  of  the  decisive  battles  of  the  Revo- 
lution were  fought  within  30  miles  of  Troy.  The  story  of  the  Revolution  demon- 
strates the  importance  of  the  waterways  between  New  York  and  Montreal  for  military 
purposes.  Should  occasion  ever  again  arise,  the  existence  here  of  proper  facilities 
lor  the  storage  of  supplies,  the  mobilization  and  movement  of  troops  and  munitions 
of  war,  would  be  of  inestimable  value. 

The  citizens  and  municipality  of  Troy  will  cooperate  with  the  Federal  Government 
and  supplement  all  improvements  it  will  make  by  meeting  the  requirements  which 
you  say  Congress  imposes  as  a  condition  of  spending  the  people's  money. 

In  order  that  you  may  have  perfect  assurance  of  the  attitude  and  willingness  of  our 
chamber  of  commerce,  the  corporation  of  the  city  of  Troy,  and  our  citizens  generally 
in  all  these  respects,  upon  which  you  may  rely  in  the  preparation  of  the  report  which 
you  will  make  under  the  river  and  harbor  act  of  March  3,  1909,  we  beg  leave  to  refer 
to  the  action  of  the  common  council  of  our  city  taken  July  1,  1909,  a  certified  copy  of 
which,  with  the  personally  signed  approval  of  our  mayor  thereof,  is  hereto  attached 
and  made  a  part  hereof,  and  to  say  that  the  undersigned,  by  a  resolution  duly  adopted 
by  the  directors  of  our  chamber  of  commerce,  has  appointed  a  strong  committee  of 
representative  citizens  upon  harbor  facilities,  whose  duty  it  will  be  to  secure  such  local 
cooperation  as  the  Federal  Government  may  require,  and  to  urge  in  all  proper  ways 
the  needs  of  our  community  with  respect  to  river  and  harbor  improveAients  at  Troy. 

We  welcome  and  invite  your  suggestions,  and  will  cheerfully  forward  such  addi- 
tional information  as  you  may  desire,  or  that  we  may  be  able. 
Yours,  very  respectfully, 

E.  W.  Douglas, 
President  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce. 

Col.  W.  M.  Black, 

Corps  of  Engineers,  New  York,  N.  Y,' 


HUDSON  KIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


117 


EXTRACTS  FROM  LETTERS  RELATING  TO  IMPROVEMENT  OF  HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 

Plan  outlined  by  War  Department  would  give  decided  advantages  to  shipping  over 
present  conditions.  Keeping  channel  open  throughout  entire  year  would  increase 
our  shipments  by  at  least  30  per  cent.  Our  shipping  by  water  would  be  very  largely 
increased  if  conditions  at  Troy  for  shipping  by  water  were  improved. 

Hall,  Hartwell  &  Company. 

Present  water  front  of  Troy  from  Ferr>'  street  to  Breaker  Island  Point  is  a  menace  to 
safe  navigation  to  and  from  present  docks,  as  well  as  to  vessels  and  tows  going  up  and 
down  the  river;  boats  sunk  and  often  strained  by  going  aground  over  the  bar  in  front  of 
docks  from  Ferry  street  to  Burden's  and  the  old  Corning  steel  works.    (See  letter.) 

Albany  Towing  Company. 

Present  depth  of  channel  makes  it  impossible  for  us  to  ship  from  our  own  dock,  and 
we  only  obtain  a  very  limited  amount  of  raw  material  by  water;  must  pay  a  little 
higher  prices  for  raw  material  on  account  of  small  boat  loads  which  we  can  get  up  to 
our  dock,  and  then  only  get  boats  certain  times  of  the  year.  Our  raw  material  is 
brought  to  us  by  rail  on  account  of  shallowness  of  the  channel.  With  channel  of  proper 
depth  we  could  bring  it  all.  Consists  of  iron,  pig  iron,  and  sand.  Send  weekly  car- 
loads of  valves  and  hydrants  by  boat,  which  could  be  sent  from  our  docks.  Larger 
boats  could  come  up  the  river  under  their  own  power,  also  larger  canal  boats  and 
barges,  which  would  enable  dock  owners  and  others  situated  back  of  dock  line  to  bring 
up  raw  material  in  larger  quantities.  Great  saving  in  freight.  If  we  could  ship 
directly  from  our  docks  we  could  save  40  to  50  cents  a  ton. 

Ludlow  Valve  Mfg.  Co. 

Ability  to  load  boats  at  all  stages  of  river  would  be  an  advantage.  Large  boats  can 
not  come  up  to  our  dock;  small  ones  come  up  with  difficulty.  We  lost  a  boat  in  1906. 
Struck  a  rock.  Total  loss.  Transportation  by  river  being  so  precarious  and  expensive 
because  of  high  rate  charged  to  handle  cargoes  under  dangerous  conditions. 

McLeod  &  Henry. 

We  have  difficulty  in  using  our  water  facilities.  Now  we  receive  only  40  or  45  tons 
as  against  40,000  and  50,000  tons  formerly.  Once  we  could  lease  a  portion  of  our  dock 
at  advantageous  terms.  Because  unfavorable  conditions,  impossibility  to  bring  fully 
loaded  boats  to  the  dock,  increased  freight  rates  due  to  this  cause,  fear  of  river  men  that 
their  boats  may  be  stranded  and  possibly  lost,  the  tonnage  passing  over  our  dock  has 
shrunken  to  practically  nothing.  Our  rentals  have  dwindled  until  they  are  now 
pract'cally  nominal. 

Fuller  &  Warren  Co. 

It  would  be  to  our  advantage  to  have  river  improvements  made;  it  would  increase 
our  business  to  considerable  extent.  Our  tonnage  which  now  comes  by  cars  with 
proper  river  facilities  could  come  by  water. 

AiRD-DoN  Company. 

If  the  channel  would  be  kept  open  in  the  winter,  the  freight  which  we  give  to 
railroads  would  go  by  boats. 

Tolhurst  Machine  Works. 

With  proper  terminal  facilities  we  would  receive  3,000  tons  per  year. 

United  Waste  Mfg.  Co. 

With  improvements  by  water  we  could  ship  between  600  and  700  carloads  of  an 
average  of  over  30,000  pounds. 

William  Connors  Paint  Mfg.  Co. 

With  proper  shipping  facilities  a  large  proportion  of  our  goods  for  the  South,  as  well 
as  for  New  York  and  the  Atlantic  coast,  could  be  shipped  by  water,  and  we  would  be 
glad  of  the  opportunity,  as  rates  by  water  are  considerably  less  than  by  rail. 

United  Shirt  and  Collar  Co. 


118 


HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


The  river  in  its  present  condition  is  absolutely  useless.  We  can  put  on  only  about 
half  the  capacity  of  any  boat  sent  here  to  be  loaded.  Boatmen  refuse  to  carry  half 
loads  for  less  money  than  the  whole  load  would  cost.  This  increases  freight  rates 
100  per  cent.  With  proper  facilities  we  could  make  shipment  by  water.  Troy,  being 
the  head  of  navigation,  should  command  all  the  shipping  from  the  surrounding 
territory. 

Troy  Fireproofing  Company. 

We  are  dependent  in  the  spring,  summer,  and  fall  months  on  the  river.  We  can 
not  get  things  by  railroad  in  time.  Have  a  heavy  out-of-town  business  and  must 
get  our  goods  early  every  morning  to  ship  on  trains  north  and  west.  In  the  winter 
we  are  subject  to  serious  inconvenience  by  delays  on  the  railroads.  Would  like 
improvements. 

Stout  &  Metcalfe,  Fruit  Merchants. 

With  proper  facilities  our  river  tonnage  would  be  increased  from  3,000  to  4,000  tons. 

Andrew  Ruff's  Sons. 

.We  receive  all  our  coal  by  rail.    It  could  come  by  boat. 

John  A.  Manning  Paper  Company. 

A  public  harbor  would  increase  competition  with  the  railroads  and  result  in  reducing 
rates.  Better  transportation  facilities  would  be  an  inducement  to  new  concerns 
to  locate  in  Troy. 

John  Leggett  &  Son. 

Improvement  of  river  facilities  would  increase  river  tonnage. 

Craver,  Cowee  &  Baxter. 

At  times  we  have  great  difficulty  in  unloading  at  our  dock.  We  are  obliged  to  bring 
in  coal  by  rail  in  consequence.  Improvement  of  river  conditions  would  be  a  great 
benefit  to  us  and  to  business  interests  of  Troy. 

Brewster  &  Abbott. 

Have  not  used  the  river  to  any  extent  in  past  years.  Our  produce  comes  by  rail, 
but  it  could  come  by  water. 

BouTWELL  Milling  &  Grain  Co. 

We  experience  great  delay  in  getting  goods  because  of  shallow  water;  because  of 
inability  to  load  satisfactorily,  due  to  low  water ,^ prospective  sales  of  ice  in  the  summer 
have  been  canceled. 

B.  Cooper  Ice  Company. 


A  RESOLUTION  PASSED  BY  THE  COMMON  COUNCIL  OP  THE  CITY  OF  TROY,  N.  Y.,  AT  A 
MEETING  OF  SAID  COUNCIL  HELD  ON  THE  IST  DAY  OP  JULY,  1909. 

By  Alderman  Owen — 

Whereas  the  commercial  interests  and  the  future  prosperity  of  the  city  of  Troy  im- 
peratively require  that  better  and  adequate  facilities  be  afforded  for  Hudson  River 
navigation;  and 

Whereas  the  present  channel  established  by  the  General  Government  is  located 
at  some  distance  from  the  dock  line,  by  reason  of  which  fact  the  shipment  of  freight 
by  river  has  been  delayed,  and  in  many  instances  entirely  prevented;  and 

Whereas  the  freight  tonnage  of  Troy,  which  is  preeminently  a  commercial  and 
manufacturing  city,  is  now  very  great,  although  it  has  been  handicapped  by  insuffi- 
cient river  accommodations;  and 

Whereas  the  city  of  Troy,  situated  at  the  head  of  tidewater  on  the  Hudson  River 
and  also  at  the  termini  of  the  enlarged  Erie  and  Champlain  canals,  with  a  river 
frontage  of  several  miles  and  connected  by  extensive  railroad  systems  with  the 
West,  with  the  New  England  States  and  with  northern  New  York  and  Canada,  has 
surpassing  advantages  as  a  point  for  the  reception,  storage,  handling,  and  trans- 
shipment of  freight;  and 

Whereas  it  is  represented  that  Congress  may  provide  a  comprehensive  plan  and 
may  make  sufficient  appropriations  for  the  improvement  of  the  river  and  for  the 
eetablishinent  of  a  port  or  harbor  if  satisfied  that  existing  and  prospective  conditions 
of  commerce  will  warrant  the  expense,  and  that  the  city  of  Troy  will  take  suitable 
part  and  give  aid  in  preserving  the  work  that  may  be  done  and  furnishing  facilities 
to  those  who  desire  to  make  commercial  use  of  the  river:  Now  therefore  be  it 


HUDSON  BIVEE^  NEW  YORK 


119 


Resolved,  By  the  common  council  of  the  city  of  Troy,  speaking  in  the  name  and 
on  behalf  of  the  city,  that  if  the  General  Government  shall  take  measures  for  the 
widening,  deepening,  and  improvement  of  the  existing  channel  up  to  the  harbor 
line  and  so  that  vessels  may  readily  land  at  the  docks,  the  city  of  Troy  will  give  aid 
and  encouragement  to  the  work  thus  undertaken  and  to  the  creation  and  mainte- 
nance of  a  port  and  harbor  at  this  city  in  the  following  ways,  to  wit: 

1.  By  securing  and  maintaining  public  docks,  where  vessels  and  boats  of  all  kinds 
may  load  and  unload  their  freight  and  which  shall  be  equipped  with  adequate  appli- 
ances for  that  purpose. 

2.  By  building  and  maintaining  suitable  and  sufficient  warehouses  for  the  storage 
of  freight  if  privately  owned  warehouses  shall  not  be  sufficient  for  the  purpose. 

3.  By  enforcing  laws  and  ordinances  prohibiting  the  obstruction  of  the  channel  by 
refuse  being  placed  upon  the  adjoining  premises  and  thence  washed  into  the  river. 

4.  By  such  a  system  of  dredging  as  will  remove  from  the  river,  and  thus  maintain 
its  depth,  the  gravel  or  refuse  which  may  pass  into  the  river  from  the  public  sewers 
or  the  creeks  flowing  within  the  corporate  boundaries;  and  be  it  further 

Resolved,  That  we  hereby  request  the  War  Department  and  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  to  take  measures  looking  toward  the  furnishing  of  increased  facilities 
for  navigation  and  business  upon  this  important  highway  of  commerce  and  the  creation 
of  a  highway  at  the  city  of  Troy;  and  be  it  further 

Resolved,  That  the  mayor  is  hereby  requested  to  approve  these  resolutions  and  to 
forward  the  same  to  the  officers  of  the  National  Government  in  charge  of  the  Hudson 
River  improvement,  to  the  Senators  from  this  State,  and  to  the  Member  of  Congress 
from  this  district. 

Enrolled  and  attested  by  the  president  of  the  common  council  and  by  the  clerk  of 
the  common  council  this  15th  day  of  July,  1909. 
[seal.]  Andrew  P.  McKean, 

President. 

Andrew  E.  Delaney, 

Clerk. 

I  hereby  approve  of  the  foregoing  resolutions  of  the  common  council  of  the  city  of 
Troy. 

Elias  p.  Mann, 
Mayor  of  the  City  of  Troy. 

Dated  July  16,  1909. 


letter  of  the  troy  hydraulic  company. 

Troy,  N.  Y.,  December  SI,  1909. 

Dear  Sir:  Replying  to  yours  of  the  27th  instant,  asking  if  we  can  help  you  in  get- 
ting information  in  regard  to  the  water  rights  at  Troy  dam,  we  have  the  honor  to  state: 

Chapter  203,  laws  of  1826,  is  entitled  "An  act  to  incorporate  the  Lansingburgh  Dry 
Dock  and  Hydraulic  Company. "  By  this  act  a  corporation  was  created  and,  among 
other  things,  was  declared  to  be  capable  in  law  of  taking  and  holding,  by  lease  or  other- 
wise, either  from  the  State  or  individuals,  as  the  case  may  be,  such  lands  and  waters 
as  may  be  necessary  for  the  accommodation  and  furtherance  of  their  business. 

In  i835  chapter  187  was  passed,  by  virtue  of  which  the  corporate  name  was  changed 
to  "Troy  Hydraulic  Company,"  and  by  section  2  of  that  act  it  was  provided  that  so 
much  of  the  original  act  as  required  the  corporation  to  construct  one  or  more  dry  or 
wet  docks,  basins,  or  other  works  to  be  connected  therewith  was  repealed. 

The  corporation  named  did  construct,  and  has  ever  since  maintained,  the  canal 
now  existing  between  River  street  and  the  Hudson  River,  and  which  receives  the 
waters  passing  through  it  by  reason  of  the  construction  and  maintenance  of  the  State 
dam. 

In  1832  an  indenture  was  entered  into  between  the  people  of  the  State  of  New  York 
by  the  canal  commissioners  as  parties  of  the  first  part,  and  said  Lansingburgh  Dry 
Dock  and  Hydraulic  Company  as  party  of  the  second  part,  by  virtue  oi  which  the 
people  of  the  State  demised  and  leased  unto  the  company  the  use  of  the  surplus  water 
which  may  be  taken  at  the  east  end  of  the  State  dam  mentioned  in  said  lease.  That 
instrument  has  ever  since  been  in  force  and  the  company  has  ever  since  paid  to  the 
State  the  rent  specified  in  said  lease.  We  inclose  herewith  a  copy  of  that  lease.  We 
understand  that  one  of  like  character  was  entered  into  between  the  people  and  George 
Tibbits  in  1835  for  the  leasing  and  use  of  the  surplus  waters  of  the  Hudson  River  to 
be  taken  at  the  west  end  of  the  dam,  and  that  that  lease  has  ever  since  been  in  force. 


120 


HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


In  1887  a  bill  was  presented  in  the  legislature  of  this  State  to  provide  for  the  con- 
etriiction  of  a  fishwayin  the  State  dam.  The  Hydraulic  Company,  believing  that  the 
bill  as  presented  was  an  invasion  of  their  vested  rights,  opposed  it  and  sought  legal 
advice  as  to  its  rights  and  position  under  this  lease.  Hon.  Edwin  Countryman,  of 
Albany,  conceded  to  be  one  of  the  foremost  lawyers  of  the  State,  gave  the  matter 
very  full  consideration  and  submitted  an  opinion,  a  copy  of  which  we  also  herewith 
inclose.  Hon.  Benjamin  H.  Hall,  one  of  the  leading  attorneys  in  this  city,  gave 
like  opinion  in  regard  to  the  lease  in  question. 

The  bill  was  brought  to  the  attention  of  Governor  Hill  and  the  legal  position  of  the 
Hydraulic  Company  was  stated  to  him.  It  is  fair  to  assume  that  he  was  impressed 
with  the  force  of  these  opinions  and  of  the  position  taken,  for  the' bill  was  amended, 
and,  as  you  will  see  by  the  copy  which  we  send,  recognizes  and  preserves  the  rights 
of  the  Hydraulic  Company  under  this  lease. 

Acting  imder  this  lease,  extensive  mill  buildings  were  erected  for  various  purposes 
and  they  have  ever  since  been  operated  by  force  of  the  water  in  the  Hydraulic  Com- 
pany canal,  which  is  a  part  of  the  surplus  water  of  the  river.  Things  have  been  so 
conducted  that  no  complaint  has  been  made  by  State  officials  that  any  water  was  taken 
from  the  river  which  was  needed  for  the  purpose  of  the  canals.  These  manufacturing 
establishments  give  employment  to  many  persons,  a  great  deal  of  money  has  been 
invested  in  them,  and  they  are  of  importance  to  the  welfare  of  Troy. 

The  dam  across  the  Hudson  River  is  State  property  and  it  was  constructed  as  a  part 
of  the  canal  system  of  the  State.  In  our  judgment  it  should  continue  to  be  maintained 
by  the  State  as  a  part  of  the  enlarged  canal  system.  Indeed,  it  is  necessary  that  it 
should  be  continued  as  a  part  of  that  system. 

You  suggested  that  a  different  location,  higher  up  the  river,  is  under  consideration 
by  officers  of  the  National  Government.  Such  a  change  would  destroy  the  water 
powers  of  the  establishments  in  question,  unless  the  hydraulic  canal  was  extended, 
which  would  be  an  expensive  undertaking,  and  which,  we  think,  would  involve 
entering  upon  private  property  for  a  portion  of  the  distance  at  least;  and  we  can  not 
now  see  what  advantage  is  to  be  derived  from  making  such  a  change. 

The  construction  of  a  new  dam,  it  sems  to  us,  is  not  a  part  of  the  work  of  improving 
the  Hudson  River  which  should  be  undertaken  by  the  National  Government,  for  the 
reason  that  the  dam  is  necessary  only  because  of  the  canals  owned  and  operated  by 
the  State.  And  if  the  channel  of  the  river  is  taken  care  of  by  the  Federal  Government 
up  to  the  dam,  the  State  ought  to  maintain  the  dam  which  it  has  built  for  its  purposes. 

If  we  can  be  of  any  further  service  in  the  matter,  you  are  welcome  to  call  upon  us. 
Sincerely,  yours, 

The  Troy  Hydraulic  Company, 
Frederick  W.  Orr,  Secretary. 

Mr.  R.  H.  Talcott, 

U.  S.  Assistant  Engineer,  Albany,  N.  Y. 


letter  op  e.  w.  douglas. 

Chamber  of  Commerce, 

Troy^  N.  Y.,  January  8,  1910. 
Dear  Sir:  Pursuant  to  my  understanding  with  you  yesterday,  I  assembled  this 
morning  our  harbor  facilities  committee  and  was  instructed  by  them  to  inform  you 
that  for  use  in  the  i)reparation  of  the  report  which  you  will  forward  to  the  Chief  of 
Engineers  of  the  United  States  Army  you  may  state  that  the  city  of  Troy  will  under- 
take to  expend  not  less  than  $500,000,  if  necessary,  within  two  years,  for  the  purpose 
of  providing  suitable  terminal  structures  and  facilities  to  supplement  the  work  and 
improvements  which  are  being  made  and  contemplated  by  the  National  and  State 
governments  at  the  city  of  Troy,  and  that  it  will  forthwith  seek  to  procure  necessary 
and  proper  legislation  for  such  purpose. 
I  have  also  communicated  the  above  information  to  Mr.  Talcott,  as  requested  by  you. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

E.  W.  Douglas. 

Col.  W.  M.  Black, 

Corps  of  Engineers^  New  York,  N,  Y» 


HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


121 


LEASE  OF  LANSINGBURGH  DRY  DOCK  AND  HYDRAULIC  COMPANY. 

This  indenture,  made  the  second  day  of  January,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thou- 
sand eight  hundred  and  thirty-two,  between  the  people  of  the  State  of  New  York  by 
the  Canal  Commissioners,  parties  of  the  first  part,  and  the  Lansingburgh  Dry  Dock 
and  Hydraulic  Company,  of  the  second  part. 

Whereas  application  was  made  by  the  Lansingburgh  Dry  Dock  and  Hydraulic  Com- 
pany to  the  Canal  Commissioners  for  a  lease  of  the  surplus  waters  created  by  the  erec- 
tion of  the  State  dam  in  the  Hudson  River  above  the  city  of  Troy,  to  be  used  on  the 
land  of  said  company  at  the  east  end  of  said  dam;  and 

Whereas  the  Canal  Commissioners  did,  in  piu"suance  of  section  eighty-seven  of  title 
nine  of  the  ninth  chapter  of  the  first  part  of  the  revised  statutes,  direct  the  canal 
appraisers  to  estimate  the  annual  value  of  the  surplus  water  which  may  be  taken  at 
the  east  end  of  the  aforesaid  dam,  and  not  exceeding  one-half  of  the  quantity  which 
may  be  taken  at  both  ends  of  said  dam,  for  the  term  of  nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine 
years;  and 

Whereas  the  canal  appraisers  did  estimate  the  annual  value  of  the  use  of  sucli  water 
at  the  sum  of  fifty  dollars  for  the  first  year,  with  an  increase  of  fifty  dollars  a  year  for 
every  year  thereafter  until  it  amounts  to  the  sum  of  three  hundred  dollars  a  j^ear,  and 
then  to  continue  at  the  said  sum  of  three  hundred  dollars  a  year  for  the  remainder 
of  said  term;  now,  therefore,  this  indenture  witnesseth  that  the  said  party  of  the  first 
part,  by  the  said  Canal  Commissioners,  for  and  in  consideration  of  the  rents,  covenants, 
conditions,  and  reservations  hereinafter  contained,  have  demised,  leased,  and  to  farm 
let,  and  do  by  these  presents  demise,  lease  and  to  farm  let,  unto  the  said  parties  of 
the  second  part,  the  use  of  the  surplus  water  which  may  be  taken  at  the  east  end 
of  the  aforesaid  dam,  and  not  exceeding  one-half  of  the  quantity  which  may  be 
taken  at  both  ends  of  said  dam,  such  surplus  water  to  be  taken  and  drJiwn  from  the 
said  dam  at  such  place  and  in  such  manner,  and  be  discharged  at  such  place  and  in 
Buch  manner,  as  the  acting  Canal  Commissioner  or  the  Canal  Commissioners  shall 
from  time  to  time  direct,  saving  and  reserving  to  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part 
the  right  wholly  to  resume  the  waters  hereby  conveyed  and  the  privileges  hereby 
granted,  and  to  control  and  limit  the  use  of  said  water  and  privileges  whenever,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  Canal  Board  or  of  the  legislature  the  necessary  supply  of  water 
for  use  of  any  State  canal,  or  the  safety  of  such  canal,  or  works  connected  therewith, 
shall  render  such  resumption,  control,  or  limitation  necessary. 

And  in  case  any  such  resumption  shall  be  made,  or  control  or  limitation  imposed, 
no  compensation  or  damages  shall  be  allowed  for  any  improvements  or  erections 
made,  or  which  may  be  made,  under  or  in  consequence  of  this  grant  or  lease.  And 
also  saving  and  reserving  to  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part  the  right,  without  makirg 
any  compensation  to  the  said  parties  of  the  second  part,  or  any  other  person  claiming 
under  them,  wholly  to  abandon  or  destroy  the  work,  by  the  construction  of  which 
the  said  surplus  water  has  been  created,  whenever,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Canal  Com- 
missioners, the  occupation  and  use  of  the  said  work  shall  cease  to  be  advantageous 
to  the  State. 

To  have  and  to  hold  the  rights,  liberties,  and  privileges  aforesaid,  subject  to  the 
covenants,  conditions,  and  reservations  herein  contained,  unto  the  said  parties  of  the 
second  part,  their  successors  or  assigns,  for  and  during  and  until  the  full  end  and  term 
of  nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  years,  fully  to  be  completed  and  ended,  yielding 
and  paying  therefor,  to  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part,  the  clear  annual  rent  of  fifty 
dollars  for  the  first  year,  one  hundred  dollars  for  the  second  year,  one  hundred  and 
fifty  dollars  for  the  third  year,*  two  hundred  dollars  for  the  fourth  year,  two  hundred 
and  fifty  dollars  for  the  fifth  year,  and  three  hundred  dollars  for  every  year  thereafter, 
to  be  paid  to  the  commissioners  of  the  canal  fund  at  the  expiration  of  each  and  ever 
year  during  the  continuance  of  this  present  demise. 

And  the  said  parties  of  the  second  part,  for  thetnselves,  their  successors  and  assigns, 
do  hereby  covenant  and  agree  to  and  with  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part,  that  they 
will  in  all  things  well  and  truly  observe,  perform,  and  fulfill  all  things  herein  contained 
on  their  part  and  behalf  to  be  observed,  performed,  or  fulfilled,  and  that  they  will 
annually  pay  to  the  commissioners  of  the  canal  fund  the  rent  above  reserved;  pro- 
vided always,  and  these  presents  and  everything  herein  contained  are  upon  this 
express  condition,  that  if  the  said  annual  rent  shall  at  any  time  remain  unpaid  for  one 
year  after  it  shall  become  due,  this  grant  or  lease  shall  become  forfeited  to  the  people 
of  the  State, 


122 


HUDSON  RIVER,  NEW  YORK. 


In  witness  whereof  the  Canal  Commissioners,  on  behalf  of  the  said  parties  of  the 
first  part  and  the  said  parties  of  the  second  part,  have  hereunto  set  their  hands  and 
affixed  their  seals  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

S.  Young,  [l.  s.' 

Wm.  C.  Bouck,       [l.  s.| 
Jonas  Earle,  Jr.,    [l.  a." 
Canal  Commissioners. 
Nathan  Warren,  [l.  s.] 
President  Lansingburgh  Dry  Dock  Company. 

Sealed  and  delivered  in  the  presence  of  John  B.  Staats. 

State  of  New  York,  Albany  County,  ss: 

I  hereby  certify  that  on  the  21st  day  of  February,  1832,  personally  appeared  before 
me,  Samuel  Young,  W  illiam  C.  Bouck,  and  Jonas  Earll,  jr.,  and  Nathan  Warren,  the 
three  former  to  me  known  to  be  the  Canal  Commissioners,  and  the  same  persons  de- 
scribed in  and  who  executed  the  annexed  deed  as  such  commissioners,  and  the  said 
Nathan  Warren  to  me  known  to  be  the  president  of  the  Lansingburgh  Dry  Dock  and 
Hydraulic  Company,  and  the  person  described  in  said  deed  as  such,  and  the  seal 
affixed  to  such  deed  to  be  the  seal  of  said  company;  and  they  severally  acknowledged 
they  executed  the  same  in  their  representative  capacities  for  the  uses  and  purposes 
therein  mentioned. 

James  L'Amoureaux, 
First  Judge  Albany  Com.  Pleas, 

Counselor  in  Supreme  Court, 


lease  for  water  at  troy  dam,  west  end. 

This  indenture,  made  the  twenty-sixth  day  of  November,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-five,  between  the  people  of  the  State  of  New 
York,  by  the  Canal  Commissioners,  parties  of  the  first  part,  and  George  Tibbits,  of 
the  city  of  Troy,  in  the  county  of  Rensselaer,  and  State  of  New  York,  party  of  the 
second  part. 

Whereas  the  canal  board,  on  the  application  of  George  Tibbits  for  a  lease  of  the  sur- 
plus water  of  the  Hudson  River,  at  the  west  end  of  the  Troy  dam,  did,  on  the  thirty- 
first  day  of  March,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-five,  pass  a  resolution  direct- 
ing the  said  surplus  water,  not  exceeding  one-half  of  the  same,  to  be  leased  to  him  for 
the  term  of  nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  years,  and  that  the  Canal  Commissioners 
direct  the  canal  appraisers  to  estimate  the  value  of  the  use  of  such  waters,  agreeable 
to  the  provisions  of  title  nine,  chapter  nine,  part  first,  of  the  Revised  Statutes. 

And  whereas  the  Canal  Commissioners,  in  obedience  to  said  resolution,  having 
requested  the  canal  appraisers  to  estimate  and  appraise  the  value  of  the  said  surplus 
^    water,  according  to  the  terms  of  the  said  resolution  above  referred  to. 

And  whereas  the  canal  appraisers  did,  on  the  twenty-seventh  day  of  October,  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  thirty-five,  estimate  the  annual  value  of  one-half  of  the 
surplus  water  of  the  Hudson  River  to  be  taken  at  the  west  end  of  the  Troy  dam  at 
fifty  dollars  for  the  first  year,  to  increase  fifty  dollars  each  and  every  year  thereafter, 
until  it  amounts  to  the  sum  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  for  the  remainder  of  the 
term  specified  in  the  resolution  of  the  canal  board  above  referred  to. 

Now,  therefore,  this  indenture  witnesseth,  that  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part, 
by  the  said  Canal  Commissioners,  for  and  in  consideration  of  the  rents,  covenants, 
conditions  and  reservations  hereinafter  contained,  have  demised,  leased  and  to  farm 
let,  and  by  these  presents  demise,  lease  and  to  farm  let,  unto  the  said  party  of  the 
second  part,  the  surplus  water  of  the  Hudson  River,  at  the  west  end  of  the  Troy 
dam,  not  exceeding  one-half  of  the  said  surplus  water  of  said  river  at  said  dam,  said 
surplus  water  to  be  taken  and  drawn  from  the  said  dam,  or  from  the  pond  above  the  said 
dam,  at  such  place  and  in  such  manner,  and  be  discharged  at  such  j)Iace  and  in  such 
manner,  as  the  acting  Canal  Commissioner  or  the  Canal  Commissioners  shall  from 
time  to  time  direct,  securing  and  reserving  to  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part,  the  right 
wholly  to  resume  the  water  hereby  conveyed  and  the  privileges  herebjr  granted,  and 
to  control  and  limit  the  use  of  the  said  water  and  privileges  whenever,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  canal  board  or  of  the  legislature,  the  necessary  surplus  water  for  the  use  of  any 
State  canal,  or  the  safety  of  such  canal  or  works  connected  therewith,  shall  render 
Buch  resumption,  control  or  limitation  necessary. 


HUDSON  EIVER,  NEW  YORK 


123 


And  in  case  any  such  resumption  shall  be  made,  or  limitation  or  control  be  imposed, 
no  compensation  or  damages  shall  be  allowed  for  any  improvements  or  erections 
made,  or  which  may  be  made,  under  or  in  consequence  of  this  grant  or  lease,  and  also 
saving  and  reserving  to  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part  the  right,  without  making  any 
compensation  to  the  said  party  of  the  second  part,  or  any  other  person  claiming  under 
him,  wholly  to  abandon  or  destroy  the  work,  by  the  construction  of  which  the  said 
surplus  water  has  been  created,  whenever,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Canal  Commissioner, 
the  occupation  and  use  of  the  said  work  shall  cease  to  be  advantageous  to  the  State; 
to  have  and  to  hold  the  rights,  liberties,  and  privileges  aforesaid,  subject  to  cove- 
nants, conditions,  and  reservations  herein  contained  unto  the  said  party  of  the  second 
part,  his  executors,  administrators,  and  assigns,  for  and  during  and  until  the  full  end 
and  term,  nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  years,  fully  to  be  completed  and  ended, 
yielding  and  paying  therefor  to  the  said  parties  of  the  first  part  the  clear  annual  rent 
at  which  the  use  of  said  water  was  appraised  as  aforesaid ;  that  is  to  say,  at  the  expira- 
tion of  one  year  from  the  first  day  of  May  next  fifty  dollars,  for  the  second  year  one 
hundred  dollars,  for  the  third  year  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars,  for  the  fourth  year 
two  hundred  dollars,  and  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  at  the  expiration  of  each  and 
every  year  thereafter,  to  be  paid  to  the  commissioners  of  the  canal  fund  during  the 
continuance  of  this  present  demise. 

And  the  said  party  of  the  second  part,  for  himself,  his  executors,  administrators, 
and  assigns,  doth  hereby  covenant  and  agree  to  and  with  the  said  parties  of  the  first 

Eart  that  he  will  in  all  things  well  and  truly  observe,  perform,  and  fulfill  all  things 
erein  contained  on  his  part  and  behalf  to  be  observed,  performed,  or  fulfilled,  and 
that  he  will  annually  pay  to  the  commissioners  of  the  caual  fund  the  rent  above 
reserved;  provided,  always,  and  these  presents  and  everything  herein  contained  are 
upon  this  express  condition,  that  if  the  said  annual  rent  shall  at  any  time  remain 
unpaid  for  one  year  after  it  shall  become  due,  this  grant  or  lease  shall  become  forfeited 
to  the  people  of  the  State. 

In  witness  whereof  the  said  Canal  Commissioners,  on  behalf  of  said  parties  of  the 
first  part,  and  the  said  party  of  the  second  part  have  hereunto  set  their  hands  and 
afl&xed  their  seals  the  day  and  year  first  above  written. 

Jonas  EARLE,Jr.  [l.  s.J 
Wm.  C.  Bouck.  l.  s.J 
John  Bowman,  l.  s.] 
George  Tibbits.  [l.  s.] 
Sealed  and  delivered  in  the  presence  of  James  H.  Mallory. 

City  and  County  of  Albany,  ss: 

On  this  13th  day  of  January,  1836,  before  me  personally  came  James  H.  Mallory, 
known  to  me,  and  who  being  by  me  duly  sworn  did  depose  and  say,  that  he  is  a  resi- 
dent of  the  city  and  county  of  Albany;  that  he  was  present  and  saw  Jonas  Earll,  jr., 
Wm.  C.  Bouck,  John  Bowman,  and  George  Tibbits,  named  and  described  in  the 
foregoing  lease,  execute  and  deliver,  and  acknowledge  the  same  as  their  act  and  deed; 
that  he  knows  the  said  Jonas  Earll,  jr.,  William  C.  Bouck,  John  Bowman,  and  George 
Tibbits  to  be  the  persons  described  in  and  who  executed  the  said  lease;  and  that  he, 
the  deponent,  subscribed  his  name  as  a  witness  to  such  execution  thereof,  which 
being  to  me  satisfactory  evidence  of  the  execution  of  said  lease,  I  allow  it  to  be 
recorded. 

Anthony  Gould,  Commissioner. 

(Copy  of  the  deed.) 

Kecorded  in  the  Albany  County  clerk's  office,  January  13,  1836,  at  1  p.  m.,  in  book 
51  of  deeds,  page  402,  etc. 


« 


INDEX. 


A. 

.  Page. 

Aird-Don  Co.,  extract  from  letter  of   117 

Albany  Towing  Co.,  extract  from  letter  of   117 

Attorney  general  of  New  York.    (See  Carmody,  Thomas,  and  O'Malley,  Ed- 
ward R.) 

Attorney  General  of  the  United  States.    (See  Wickersham,  George  W.) 

B. 

Barge  Canal  Terminal  Conference,  resolution  of   57,  60 

Barnes,  M.  G.,  letter  from,  October  26,  1910,  to  Col.  W.  M.  Black   11 

Bixby,  W.  H. ,  Chief  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army.    (See  Engineers,  United 
States  Army.") 

Black,  Col.  W.  M.,  Corps  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army.    (See  Engineers, 
United  States  Army. ) 

Boutwell  Milling  &  Grain  Co.,  extract  from  letter  of   118 

Brewster  &.  Abbott,  extract  from  letter  of   118 

Burr,  Edw.,  Acting  Chief  of  Engineers.    (See  Engineers,  United  States  Army.) 

C. 

Canal  Board: 

Resolution  of,  rescinding  resolution  of  November  22,  1910   17 

Resolutions  of ,  November  22,  1910   14 

Secretary  of,  letter  from  Col.  W.  M.  Black  to.  June  10,  1910   5 

Carmody,  C  >'vni-  ,  attorney  general  of  New  York: 

Black,  W.  M.,  lette»  and  inclosure  to,  May  17,  1911   30 

Stimson,  H.  L.,  Secret arv  of  War — 

Letter  from,  January  24,  1912   76 

Letter  from,  January  29,  1912   78 

Letter  to,  January  31,  1912   76 

Letter  to,  January  26,  1912   76 

Cavanaugh,  J.  B.,  Maj.,  Corps  of  Engineers.    (See  Engineers,  United  States 
Army.) 

Chamber  of  Commerce,  Trov,  N.  Y.    (See  also  Douglas,  E.  W.) 

Letter  from,  July  19,  1909,  to  W.  M.  Black   109 

Chief  of  Engineers,  United  States  Army.    (See  Engineers,  United  States  Army.) 

Common  council,  Troy,  N.  Y.,  resolution  of,  July  1,  1909   118 

Connors,  William,  Paint  Manufacturing  Co.,  extract  from  letter  of   117 

Cooper,  B.,  Ice  Co..  extract  from  letter  of   118 

Corps  of  Engineers,  L''^nited  States  Army.    (See  Engineers.  United  States  Army.) 

Craver,  Co  wee  &  Baxter,  extract  from  letter  of   118 

Crowder,  E.  H.,  Judge  Advocate  General.  War  Department: 

Bixby,  W.  H.,  indorsement  of ,  Novembers,  1911,  on  letter  from  W.  M.  Black 

to  W.  H.  Bixbv,  transmitting  letter   69 

Indorsement  of, 'May  22,  1911.  on  letter  of  May  10,  1911,  from  W.  M.  Black 
to  W.  H.  Bixby,  returning  letter  to  Secretary  of  War   23 

D. 

Dickinson,  Jacob  M,,  Secretary  of  War: 
Bixby,  W.  H.— 

Indorsement  of,  Mav  17,  1911,  on  letter  of  May  10,  1911,  from  W.  M. 

Black  to  W.  H.  Bixby,  submitting  letter   22 

Letter  from,  August  4,  1910   9 

Crowder,  E.  H.  indorsement  of,  May  22,  1911,  on  letter  of  May  10,  1911, 
from  W.  M.  Black  to  W.  H.  Bixby,  returning  letter   23 

125 


126 


INDEX. 


Dickinson,  Jacob  M.,  Secretary  of  War — Continued.  Page. 

Dix,  John  A.,  letter  to,  May  9,  1911^   27 

Harr,  W.  R.,  letter  from,  May  29,  1911   46 

Marshall.  \V.  L.,  letter  from,  February  24, 1910   82 

Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  letter  to,  February  25,  1910   82 

Stevens,  F.  C,  letter  from,  November  23,  1910   12 

Tread  well,  George  Curtis,  letter  from,  August  10,  1910   11 

Dix,  John  A.,  governor  of  New  York: 

Approving  resolution  of  canal  board   18 

Bixby,  W.  H.,  letter  to,  April  28,  1911   16 

Black,  W.  M..  letter  from.  May  11,  1911   28 

Carmody,  Thomas,  opinion  by,  on  surplus  waters,  Troy  dam   31 

Dickinson,  Jacob  M.,  letter  from,  May  9,  1911   27 

Secretary  of,  letter  of  May  26,  1911,  acknowledging  receipt  of  communica- 
tion from  Robert  Shaw  Oliver   46 

Stimson,  H.  L.,  Secretary  of  War — 

I^etter  from,  June  30,  1911   47 

Letter  from,  September  15,  1911   61 

Letter  from,  January  19,  1912   73 

Letter  from,  January  24,  ^  1912   78 

Letter  to,  July  7,  1911..  .*   48 

Telegram  from,  June  30.  1911   48 

Telegram  to,  June  29,  1911   47 

Douglas,  E.  W.  (see  also  Chamber  of  Commerce,  Troy,  N.  Y.): 

Black,  W.  M.,  letter  to,  January  8,  1910   120 

E. 

Engineers,  United  States  Army: 

Bixby,  W.  H.,  Chief  of  Engineers — 

Black,  Col.  W.  M.,  Corps  of  Engineers — 

Copy  of  letter  of  May  11,  1911,  to  John  A.  Dix,  by,  furnished   29 

Indorsement  of,  October  27, 1910,  on  letter  of  October  26, 1910,  from 

M.  G.  Barnes  to  Col.  W.  M.  Black,  forwarding  letter   11 

Indorsement  of,  December  6,  1910,  on  letter  of  November  23,  1910, 

from  F.  C.  Stevens  to  Jacob  M.  Dickinson,  returning  letter   12 

Indorsement  of.  May  3,  1911,  on  letter  of  April  28,  1911,  from  John 

A.  Dix  to  W.  H.  Bixby,  returning  letter   17 

Indorsement,  June  1,  1911,  on  letter  of  May  27,  1911,  from  W.  M. 

Black  to  W.  H.  Bixby,  returning  letter  to   44 

Indorsement  of,  June  7,  1911,  on  letter  of  May  27,  1911,  from  W.  M. 

Black  to  W.  H.  Bixby,  returning  letter   45 

Indorsement  of,  October  17,  1911,  on  letter  of  September  13,  1911, 

from  Wm.  Loeb,  jr.,  to  Henry  L.  Stimson,  retiu-ning  letter   58 

Indorsement  of,  January  16,  1912,  on  letter  from  Wm.  W.  Loomis 

to  Wm.  M.  Black,  forwarding  letter   72 

Indorsement  of,  February  23,  1912.  on  memorandum  of  Febru- 
ary 12,  1912,  from  W.  H.  Bixby  to  the  Secretary  of  War.  re- 
turning letter   81 

Letter  from,  Julv  2,  1910   5 

Letter  from,  July  11,  1910   7 

Letter  from.  May  3,  1911   18 

Letter  from.  May  19,  1911   29 

Letter  from.  May  23,  1911   35 

Letter  from.  May  24,  1911,  and  inclosure   36 

Letter  from.  May  27,  1911   43 

Letter  from,  November  6,  1911,  and  inclosur  s   62 

Letters  from.  May  10,  1911   21,  25 

Dickinson,  Jacob  M.,* letter  to,  August  4,  1910   9 

Dix,  John  A.,  letter  from,  April  28,  1911   16 

Judge  Advocate  General,  indorsement,  November  8,  1911,  on  letter 

from  W\  M.  Black  to  W.  H.  Bixby,  transmitting  lettor  to   69 

Secretary  of  War,  indorsement,  Mav  17,  1911,  on  Utter  of  Mav  10, 

1911,  from  AV.  M.  Black  to  W.  H.  Bixby,  submitting  letter  to./.....  22 
Stimson,  H.  L. — 

Indorsement  of,  on  memorandum  of  February  12,  1912,  from 

W.  H  Bixby   81 

Memorandum  for,  February  12,  1912   79 

Memorandum  from,  September  15,  1911....   56 


INDEX.  127 

Engineers,  United  States  Army— Continued. 

Black,  Col.  W.  M.,  Corps  of  Engineers—  Pag-- 

Barnes,  M.  G.,  letter  from,  October  26,  1910   11 

Bixby,  W.  H.,  Chief  of  Engineers — 

Copy  of  letter  of  May  11,  1911,  to  John  A.  Dix  furnished  to   29 

Indorsement,  October  27,  1910,  on  letter  of  October  26,  1910, 

from  M.  G.  Barnes  to  Col.  W.  M.  Black,  forwarding  letter  to . . .  11 
Indorsement,  December  6,  1910,  on  letter  of  November  23,  1910, 

from  F.  C.  Stevens  to  Jacob  M.  Dickinson,  returning  letter  to..  12 
Indorsement,  May  3,  1911,  on  letter  of  April  28,  1911,  from  John 

A.  Dix  to  W.  H.  Bixby,  returning  letter  to   17 

Indorsement  of,  June  1,  1911,  on  letter  of  May  27,  1911,  from  W.  M. 

Black  to  W.  H.  Bixby,  returning  letter   44 

Indorsement,  June  7,  1911,  on  letter  of  May  27,  1911,  from  W.  M. 

Black  to  W.  H.  Bixby,  returning  letter  to   45 

Indorsement,  October  17,  1911,  on    letter  of  September  13,  1911, 

from  Wm.  Loeb,  jr.,  to  Henry  L.  Stimson,  returning  letter  to. .  58 
Indorsement,  January  16,  1912,  on  letter  from  Wm.  W.  Loomis  to 

Wm.  M.  Black,  forwarding  letter  to   72 

Indorsement,  February  23,  1912,  on  memorandum  of  February  12, 

1912,  from  W,  H.  Bixby  to  Secretary  of  War,  returning  letter  to.  81 

Letter  to,  July  2,  1910   5 

Letter  to,  July  11,  1910   7 

Letter  to,  May  3,  1911   18 

Letter  to.  May  19,  1911   29 

Letter  to.  May  23,  1911   35 

Letter  to,  May  24,  1911,  and  inclosure   36 

Letter  to,  May  27,  1911   43 

Letter  to,  November  6,  1911,  and  inclosures   62 

Letters  to,  May  10,  1911   21,  25 

Carmody,  Thomas,  letter  and  inclosure  from.  May  17,  1911   30 

Cavanaugh,  J.  B.,  indorsement  of,  April  29,  1911,  on  letter  of  April  28, 

1911,  from  John  A.  Dix  to  W.  H.  Bixby,  referring  letter   17 

Chamber  of  Commerce,  Troy,  N.  Y.,  letter  from,  July  19,  1909   109 

Dix,  John  A.,  letter  to.  May  11,  1911   28 

Douglas,  E.  W.,  letter  from,  January  8,  1910   120 

Johnston,  E.  N. — 

Indorsement  of,  November  29,  1910,  on  letter  of  November  23, 

1910,  from  F.  C.  Stevens  to  Jacob  M.  Dickinson,  referring  letter.  12 
Indorsement  of,  February  17, 1912,  on  memorandum  of  February  12, 

1912,  from  W.  H.  Bixby  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  referring  letter.  81 

Letter  from,  October  23,  1911   61 

Loomis,  Wm.  W.,  letter  from,  with  inclosure   71 

Preliminary  examination  of  Hudson  River,  reports  by,  on,  with 
indorsements — • 

At  Coeymane,  N.  Y.,  August  2, 1909   91 

At  the  mouth  of  Island  Creek  and  vicinity,  August  2,  1909   94 

At  Troy,  N.  Y.,  July  31,  1909   88 

In  the  lower  river  to  Waterford,  May  5,  1909   85 

Secretary  of  Canal  Board,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  letter  to,  June  10,  1910   5 

Stevens,  F.  C— 

Letter  from,  June  30,  1910   6 

Letter  from,  July  6,  1910   10 

Letter  to.  July  2,  1912   7 

Survey  of  Hudson  River  at  variou.s  localities,  partial  report  on,  January 

10,  i910   96 

Burr,  Edw. — 

Stimson,  H.  L.,  indorsement,  July  20,  1911,  on  letter  of  July  7,  1911, 

from  John  A.  Dix  to  Henry  L.  Stimson,  returning  letter  to   48 

Cavanaugh,  J.  B. — 

Indorsement  of,  April  29, 1911,  on  letter  of  April  28, 1911,  from  John  A. 

Dix  to  W.  H.  Bixby   17 

Stimson,  H.  L.,  memorandum  from,  June  27,  1911   46 

Chief  of.    (See  Bixby,  W.  H.,  and  Marshall,  W.  L.,  under  this  heading.) 
Johnston,  E.  N. — 

Black,  Col.  W.  M.— 

Indorsement,  November  29,  1910,  on  letter  of  November  23, 1910, 
from  F.  C.  Stevens  to  Jacob  M.  Dickinson,  referring  letter  to  ...  12 


128 


INDEX. 


Engineers,  United  States  Army — Continued. 
Johnston,  E.  N. — Continued. 

Black,  Col.  W.  M. — Continued.  Page. 
Indor.-^ement,  February  17,  1912,  on  memorandum  of  February 
12,  1912,  from  W.  H.  Bixby  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  referring 

letter  to   81 

Letter  to,  October  23,  lOlL   61 

Marshall,  W.  L.— 

Letter  from,  February  24,  1910,  to  the  Secretary  of  War   82 

Examinations,  preliminary,  of  Hudson  River.    {See  Hudson  River  ) 

F. 

Fuller  &  Warren  Co.,  extract  from  letter  of   117 

G. 

Gardner,  Frank  S.,  secretary  of  executive  committee,  Barge  Canal  Terminal 

Conference,  letter  to  Henry  L.  Stimson,  September  12,  1911,  and  inclosure.  ■  6 
Governor  of  New  York.    {See  Dix,  John  A.,  aad  Hughei,  Charles  E.) 

H. 

Hall,  Hartwell  &  Co.,  extract  from  letter  of   117 

Harr,  W.  R.,  letter  from.  May  29,  1911,  to  Secretary  of  War   46 

House  Document  719,  Sixty-first  Congress,  second  session   82 

Hudson  Dam,  views  conflict  on,  article   43 

Hudson  River: 

Preliminary  examination  of,  reports  bv  Wm.  M.  Black,  with  indorseme.ils— 

At  Coeymans,  N.  Y.,  August  2,  1909   91 

At  the  mouth  of  Islaad  Creek  and  vicinity,  August  2,  1909   94 

At  Troy,  N.  Y.,  July  81,  1909   88 

In  the  lower  river  to  Waterford,  Mav  5,  1909   85 

Survey  of,  at  various  localities,  partial  report  of  Wm.  M.  Bla-jk,  Ja  luary 

10,  1910-   96 

Hughes,  Gov.  Charles  E.,  letter  from  W.  H.  Bixby  to  Secretary  of  War,  of  August 

4,  1910,  referred  to,  by  John  C.  Scofield   10 

Reply  of  Secretary  to,  acknowledging  receipt   11 


J. 

Johnston,  E.  N.,  Capt.,  Corps  of  Engineers.    {See  Engineers,  United  States 
Army.) 

Judge  Advocate  General,  War  Department.    {See  Crowder,  E.  II.) 

L. 


Lansinburgh  Dry  Dock  &  Hydraulic  Co.: 

Lease  of   121 

Termination  of  lease  held  by   15 

Leggett,  John,  &  Son,  extract  from  letter  of   118 

Legislature  of  New  York  State,  preambles  and  resolutions  adopted  by,  on  or 

about  March  10,  1910   72 

Letter  of  transmittal   3 

Loeb.  Wm.,  jr.: 

Stimson,  Henry  L.,  letter  from,  September  IG,  1911   60 

Letter  to,  and  inclosures.  September  13,  1911   ; 

Loomis.  Wm.  W.,  president  Troy  (N.  Y.)  Chamber  of  Commerce,  letter  i'rom, 

with  inclosure  to  Wm.  M.  Black.   .  1 

Ludlow  Valve  Manufacturing  Co.,  extract  from  letter  of   117 

M. 

McLeod  &  Henry,  extract  from  letter  of   117 

Manning,  John  A.,  Paper  Co.,  extract  from  letter  of   118 

Marshall,  W.  L.,  Chief  of  Engineers.    {See  Engineers,  United  States  Army.) 
Mason,  John  A.,  secretary  to  the  governor  of  New  York,  letter  from,  May  26, 

1911,  to  Robert  Shaw  Oliver   46 


INDEX. 


129 


o. 

Oliver,  Robert  Shaw: 

Attorney  General  of  the  United  States,  letter  to.  May  25,  1911   41 

Mason,  John  A.,  letter  from,  May  26,  1911   46 

O'Malley,  Edward  R.,  attorney  general  of  New  York,  letter  from,  July  14, 
1910,  to  Frederick  C.  Stevens   70 

P. 

Preliminary^  examinations  of  Hudson  River,    (See  Hudson  River.) 
Public  works,  superintendent  of.    (See  Superintendent  of  public  works.) 

R. 

Resolution  requesting  transmittal  of  correspondence   3 

Ruff's,  Andrew,  Sons,  extract  from  letter  of   118 

s. 

Scofield,  John  C,  indorsement,  August  5,  1910,  on  letter  of  August  4,  1910, 
from  W.  H.  Bixby  to  Secretary  of  War,  referring  letter  to  Gov.  Charles  E, 
Hughes   10 

Secretary  of  War.    {See  Dickinson,  Jacob  M.,  and  Stimson,  H.  L.) 

Secretary  of  War,  Acting.    {See  Oliver,  Robert  Shaw.) 

Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  letter  from  J.  M.  Dickinson,  Febru- 
ary 25, 1910   82 

Stevens,  F.  C.    {See  Superintendent  of  public  works.) 
Stimson,  H.  L.,  Secretary  of  War: 
k      Bixby,  W.  H.— 

Indorsement,  on  memorandum  of  February  12,  1912,  from   81 

Memorandum  for,  September  15,  1911   56 

Memorandum  from,  February  12,  1912   79 

Burr,  Edw.,  indorsement  of,  July  20,  1911,  on  letter  of  July  7,  1911,  from 

John  A.  Dix  to  Henry  L.  Stimson,  returning  letter   41 

Cavanaugh,  Maj.,  memorandum  for,  June  27,  1911   41 

Carmody,  Thomas,  Attorney  General  of  New  York: 

Letter  from,  January  26,  1912   Ti 

Letter  from,  January  81,  1912   7i 

Letter  to,  January  24,  1912   7( 

Letter  to,  January  29,  1912   71 

Dix,  John  A.,  governor  of  New  York — 

Letter  from,  July  7,  1911  4 

Letter  to,  June  30,  1911   4 

Letter  to,  September  15,  1911   6 

Letter  to,  January  19,  1912   7: 

Letter  to,  January  24,  1912   7 

Telegram  from,  June  29,  1911   4 

Telegram  to,  June  30,  1911   4 

Gardner,  Frank  S.,  letter  from,  September  12,  1911,  and  inclosure   £ 

Loeb,  Wm.,  jr. — 

Letter  from,  September  13,  1911,  and  inclosures   5 

Letter  to,  September  16,  1911   6i 

Stout  &  Metcalfe,  extract  from  letter  of   11 

Superintendent  of  public  works  (F.  C.  Stevens): 
Black,  Col.  W.  M.— 

Letter  from,  July  2,  1910  

Letter  to,  June  30,  1910  

Letter  to,  July  6,  1910  •.   1 

Dickinson,  Jacob  M.,  letter  to,  November  23,  1910   1 

O'Malley,  Edward,  letter  from,  July  14,  1910   7 

•  Lansinburgh  Dry  Dock  &  Hydraulic  Co.  and  Troy  Hydraulic  Co.,  termina- 
tion of  leases  held  by   1 

Tibbitts,  George  and  Le  Grand  C,  termination  of  leases  held  by   1 

Troy  Hydraulic  Co.  and  Lansinburgh  Dry  Dock  &  Hydraulic  Co.,  termi- 
nation of  leases  held  by   7 

Survey  of  Hudson  River.    {See  Hudson  River. j 

54559— S.  Doc.  887,  62-2  9 


130 


INDEX. 


T. 

Talcott,  R.  II.:  Paere. 

van  Alstyne,  Henry  A.,  letter  from,  April  2,  1906   69 

Troy  Hydraulic  Co.,  letter  from,  December  31,  1909   ]19 

Tibbits,  George: 

Lease  of   122 

Termination  of  lease  held  by  ,   15 

Tibbitts,  Le  Grand  C,  termination  of  lease  held  by   15 

Tol hurst  Machine  Works,  extract  from  letter  of   117 

Treadwell,  George  Curtis,  secretary  to  the  governor  of  New  York,  letter  from, 

Au^st  10,  1910,  to  Secretary  of  War.   11 

Troy  Fireproofing  Co.,  extract  from  letter  of   118 

Troy  Hydraulic  Co.: 

Talcott,  R.  H.,  letter  to,  December  31,  1909   119 

Termination  of  lease  held  by   15 

Troy,  N.  Y.: 

Chamber  of  Commerce  {see  also  Douglas,  E.  W.) — 

Letter  from,  July  19,  1909,  to  W.  M.  Black   109 

Common  council,  resolution  of,  July  1,  1909   118 

Troy  Record,  clipping  of  May  13,  1911,  from  

U. 

United  Shirt  &  Collar  Co.,  extract  from  letter  of   117 

United  Waste  Manufacturing  Co.,  extract  from  letter  of   117 

V. 

van  Alstyne,  Honry  A.,  letter  from,  April  2,  1906,  to  R.  H.  Talcott   69 

W. 

War  Department,  Chief  of  and  Corps  of  Engineers.    (See  Engineers,  United 
States  Army.) 

War,  Secretary  of.    (See  Dickinson,  Jacob  M.,  and  Stimson,  H.  L.) 

Wickersham,  George  W.,  letter  from  Robert  Shaw  Oliver,  May  25,  1911   41 

Opinion  of,  re  construction  of  new  lock  and  dam  at  Troy,  N.  Y   48 

Williams,  Clark,  certificate  of  canal  board  resolutions  of  November  22,  1910   15 

Winne,  John  E.,  affidavit  of   16 

•  o 


V 

I 


UNITBO    STATES    ENGINEER   OFFICE.  DISTRICT 


NKW  YORK 


•  Sutr  Dim  lire  rcrluc 


■  plane  Ifi.t  feci  kbovr  Barxe  Canal  daum.wtiicl 


'   VOdH    N    T  .  JAN  'C  < 


It  lonllnn  i^r  dam  >■  chMnKod  oapthi  hntw«en  new  rIu  and  aililin 
*  found  by  •ubtr»et>nfl  lb  H  feet  from  ileplhi  tt  glvvn 

SoiindiKB.  bftwMn  St»t»  Dam  and  0«laware  and  Hudwn  bridjtc 


Tht  limiU  of  Um  propoted  Uirmish  ehannvl  and  lork  And  dim  ar«  thown  in  tul 
The  htnken  red  Ilnca  IndicAU  lliniU  of  pmpoatd  wUmlnK  af  chMnt I  at  Tmy 


c  darn  at  lownl  (UKe* 


HUDSON  RIVER  NEW  YORK 

SHOWING 

IMPROVEMENT   PROPOSED   BETWEEN   WATERFORD   AND   THE    HEAD  OF 
BREAKER   ISLAND    INCLUDING   LOCATION   OF   NEW   LOCK   AND   DAM  AND 
APPROACHES  THERETO. 

WITH    RIVCH  AND   HAR*ON  ACT  APPIOVKO    MARCH    3    I  BOS 

FROM     SURVEV8    OF  1909 
SCALE    OF  FCKT 


I.  BLACK    CORPS    OF    CNOINKKMS   >J    S.  ANMV 


COLONIC  CORP*  C 


OHATTIMO  «T 


S«nat«  Doc.  No.  8  87    :  >2d  Cong.,  2d  Sess. 


LOWER      SCHODACK  ISLAND 


Senite  Doc.  No.  8  8/   :  62d  Cong.,  2d  S«>. 


Sanata  Doc.  No.  687   =         eang..  t*  Saai 


1 


• 


